Quantum of Solace (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,443 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Shoddily directed and horrifically edited, but not a total misfire.
lnvicta25 November 2019
Quantum was my least favorite Bond movie for quite some time. After the over-ambitious Spectre, I look back at Quantum with fondness due to its simplicity. Not necessarily in its plot, but in its treatment of Bond as a character and his coming to terms with Vesper's death. It's an epilogue to Casino Royale; Bond is hellbent on revenge. It effectively functions as a discount Bourne film. Daniel Craig is great as always, as is Judi Dench and the rest of the supporting cast. The problems with Quantum lie mainly in the directing and editing.

The film opens with a car chase - Bond is being pursued by thugs. Why? We find out later, but the fact that we have no information at the start makes it really hard to care about the action. On top of that, the camera is moving and cutting every half-second so it's nearly impossible to tell what's even happening. This shaky-cam technique is used throughout the film and it's as disorienting as it is annoying.

We're eventually led to our Bond Girl, Camille, who is a unique Bond Girl for having her own character arc (and her own villain), then she leads Bond to our main villain, Dominic Greene - a businessman who wants to buy a pipeline to control Bolivia's water supply. Not exactly a James Bond-level threat, is it? Greene is no match for Bond physically in any sense, but their final confrontation is gratifying if only to see a villain genuinely, and rightly, terrified of Bond. It's great fun to watch Greene yelp as he's swinging an axe around for dear life while his fuel cell-ridden desert hotel explodes around him.

The rest plays out like a standard revenge story. Camille wants revenge against General Medrano for killing her family, and Bond wants revenge for Vesper by going after the organization that was blackmailing her. The writing is stilted and unpolished, but where the movie mainly fails is in its directing. It's pretentious and tonally clashes with the dark character study of Bond that the script is going for. It also doesn't help when the action scenes keep cutting away to a nearby horse race or an opera.

What we have here is a Bond-Bourne hybrid that had the impossible burden of having to follow Casino Royale. However, it's nice to see a gritty Bond adventure for a change. It's not a great Bond movie, but it's engaging enough to be a good time if you're able to look past its flaws.
Something is not quite right with this latest Bond offering
Gordon-116 November 2008
This film is about James Bond cracking down a multi-national corporation that works with dictators to get a share of precious natural resources.

"Quantum Of Solace" has an impressive opening sequence. It has high speed car chases with lots of collision and gunshots. The ultra short scenes (all under one second each) and the shaky camera gives urgency and thrill, but it is so hard to actually work out what is happening.

There is a lot of action and adrenaline in the film, but the plot seems not to have a focus. Nor does it make sense either, as it feels like an all-action-no-information film. All Bond does is to run around the globe after his target, and viewers are left to wonder how he made it. I don't find myself caring for the plot or the characters. I don't know why this happens, but something is not right with the film and I don't know what.
780 out of 1,114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solid & enjoyable even if a lot of it could have been a lot better than it was
bob the moo11 November 2008
I was looking forward to seeing this film but I'm not sure I was excited to see it. This had been tempered by some average reviews and also some negative ones that suggested that it was simply, not very good as a film - a lot of which have come from ideas over what a Bond film should be. People praised the "reboot" but apparently QOS is unacceptable? I do not think that the Bond films cannot change it up, but if they tried to do a Bond that was a romantic comedy I would be the first to come to this site complaining about "what have they done to Bond?" so I'm not totally for change.

QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit – these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.

Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond – it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.

The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.

QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.
7/10
They Forgot the Charm, the Cool, the Exotic, the Erotic, and the Fun
LeonLouisRicci8 March 2014
Incomprehensible at times and Utterly Charmless, the Best one can hope for is that James Bond (Daniel Craig) has put His Feelings to Rest, has Forgiven Vesper, and can now get Right with the World of Espionage and Become the Secret Agent that He was Meant to be.

It manages to Clear the Air for the Brooding Bond and that may be the Only Thing that is Clear in this Dismal Movie that has so Little of the Bond Feel that it cannot be Forgiven.

The Action Scenes are more of the Post Modern, Quick Cut, Shaky Cam Nonsense that Works quite well in Very Limited Doses but is used here to Nauseating Excess that Hacks and Film School Students, and B-Movie makers have Adapted for a "Style" that has been so Overdone as to be Ridiculous. Add to that some Extreme Close Ups and all Sense of What Goes On is Lost in a Placebo of Adrenaline.

The Film's Locations are Anything but Exotic, more like Third World Infomercials that are Used to Adopt a Hungry Child. This is a Rather Boring Bond and is about as Unexciting as a Bond could be. Given the Backstory and the Historical Template and Oodles of Money it has just Enough Empathy from Fans to Tolerate this Dull Delivery, but just Barely.

The Title is one of the Worst for a Bond Film, as is the Opening Trademark Song, and Overall One gets the Feeling that They are in Disdain for the Character's Attributes and the Coolness that made Bond Survive over 20 Movies, 5 Actors, and 5 Decades. Its Acceptable to Modernize a Bit, Tweak a Little, and bring a Slightly New Artistic Touch, but not at the Expense of the Root Material.
7/10
Fast paced but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other quick cut editing movies, this one too tried the fast cut editing n ruined the fun.
Fella_shibby18 May 2021
I first saw this in 2008 with my family in a theatre.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is the twenty-second in the Bond series, a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and the second film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Like its predecessor, this one too doesn't rely on gadgets n cgi n has more chases n fast paced action but in trying to cash in on the success of Jason Bourne, Taken n other action movies, this one tried the fast cut editing which ruined the fun.

In quick cut editing one cannot make out who's who n what is going on.

In this film, Bond seeks revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd and is assisted by a Bolivian agent Camille Montes, who is coincidentally seeking to avenge the murder of her own family. The trail eventually leads them to Dominic Green, well connected with CIA and a businessman working in reforestation and charity funding for environmental science but helping an exiled General to get back into power, in return for support for his sinister plans along with CIA.

This time Bond faces Craig Mitchell, General Medrano, Dominic Greene n Colonel Carlos.

I miss those olden Bond villain's powerful henchmen.

This time the movie being fast paced n Bond on a vengeance, Bond gets to cool off with Gemma Arterton only.

The pioneer of the balcony/window jump is undisputedly Jackie Chan (Rumble in the Bronx).

Jason Bourne in Bourne Ultimatum copied almost the same jump.

Bond too copied almost the same jump in this movie.
3/10
Stop the directors! Stop the editors! I want to get off!
Bloomer17 November 2008
This is the first time I ever came out of a Bond film at the cinema thinking, 'I enjoyed almost none of that.' And there was no mystery for me as to why I felt this way. I didn't have to weigh up the other pros and cons (it is not an unsophisticated film) or think far or deeply. I couldn't stand Quantum Of Solace because ninety-five percent of its action sequences are appallingly directed and edited. Endless, wobbly extreme closeups are cut together too rapidly into a meaningless dirge which prohibits you from discerning anything about the nature of the scene.

How many cars are participating in this car chase? Will I be allowed to glimpse anyone's face in this scene other than Bond's? Will I be allowed to glimpse even Bond's face? Which boat is in front? Where is anything in relation to anything else, ever? And just what was that? That blur in front of me for the past half a second, what the hell was it? The answers to these questions respectively throughout Quantum of Solace are, 'I have no clue, no, no, I don't know, I will never know, I don't know, I still don't know.'

I'm tired of reading any defence for the most extreme incarnation of this style of action coverage. It is purposeless obfuscation. It's anti-exciting, annoying and just plain rubbish. Bond films in particular are known for their history of spectacular action and stunts, and if you briefly consider any eighties Bond film, you'll recall that somewhere in it was a long, held shot of something amazing. People fighting on the back of an airborne plane, racing cars through Paris or pursuing each other down a mountain on skis. Compared to any one of those scenes, everything in Quantum is a disgrace, incapable of engendering marvel or wonder.

Perhaps I should try to be less catastrophic about the direction of cinema in general and just apportion blame directly to the guy from the Bourne films whose second unit did this to Quantum, and to Marc Forster, who directed the film, and either sanctioned or did not repel the Bourne-on-steroids content. Call me Mister Insane, but I demand the context, information and sense of place delivered by even the occasional wide shot. To see how Bond kung-fu'd an elevator full of guys would be cool, right? The event happens in this film, but what you actually see is a camera jerking crazily over ten inch wide patches of dark clothing, to the accompaniment of cabbages being walloped on the soundtrack. Imagine if Bruce Lee tried to get away with this crap. And this wasn't a well considered case of indicating what had just happened by offering the impression of it rather than the depiction of it, it was simply a continuation of the house style.

Quantum Of Solace takes anti-illuminating film-making to new, stupid lows!
5/10
fine actors cannot save one of the worst James Bond films
dromasca27 June 2009
Let me say from the start that Daniel Craig is one of the finest actors having played James Bond, maybe the best since Sean Connery. Judy Dench is also the best M. ever, and the idea of a female M. is just genial. Yet, the series are in trouble, and something needs to be done to save the series from the downturn that seems worst than the world economy.

I will call the film QOS because the name requires a non-native English speaker to use a dictionary to understand it - and this is one of the many small problems that make a big disappointment. Another one is the unconvincing evil character. Another one is the lack of global threats in the intrigue - to justify the immense destruction and number of widows and orphans left on the track a James Bond movie must invent something more interesting than the water supply of Bolivia revealed as the big motivation way into the film. The action scenes themselves are well made, but too fast, too many, to confuse to help the viewers understand what is going on and care beyond the pure aesthetics of destruction.

Bringing on the set fine actors and redesigning the character into a human being with real feelings as well as into a darker Bond fit to the world of today is a great idea. It is not enough though. Bringing good script writers is even more important.

Oh, and yes, please bring back Q. and please have Bond say at least once 'My name is Bond. James Bond'. There is no such thing as a good Bond film without those.
7/10
A Potpourri of Vestiges: The Quantum that lacked Solace
murtaza_mma8 November 2008
Quantum of Solace or Quantum so less, as some of its critics may call it, definitely lacks certain aspects of a traditional Bond movie. It may be eccentric in the sense that it may not be able to titillate the esoteric Bond fans as it may lack their eclectic style and taste but it definitely succeeds in projecting a new Bond for the contemporary world who may not be a coeval of a superhero, who despite being vulnerable has got the killer instinct in him, which is the very defining characteristic of Ian Fleming's larger than life human incarnate. This Bond goes about his business in a fashion which is far more realistic compared to the Bond of the bygone era with an incredible passion and utmost devotion which is nothing but inexorable. Though Casino Royale was the pioneer of this graduation but its Quantum of Solace that consummates it and gives Fleming's agent a mystique which has always eluded him hitherto, an aura which gives him an opportunity to be mortal and hence a chance to qualify to be called a human.

Quantum of Solace is loaded with mind blowing action sequences which makes it a high octane extravaganza. The pace of the movie is such that you hardly get time to breathe freely. The plot though comparatively weaker than its precursor, is still good enough to keep one guessing thereby keeping one at the edge of the seat, all the way through.

The only aspect of the movie which should be under the scanner is its editing which is far from just and at times needless and severely annoying. A bit constraint editing under some meticulous vigilance could have done wonders and would have probably helped it, in its quest to be the best Bond movie of all time.

All being said and given what we have, the movie fails to disappoint the audience and will surely redefine the very prerequisites of an action movie and will definitely serve as a benchmark for the movies in the years to come.

http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/
6/10
007
MR_Heraclius23 February 2020
Sandwiched between the triumphant "Return of Bond" in Casino Royale and the fantastic Skyfall, Quantam of Solace was a step back for the franchise. Craig's Bond for once doesn't bed anyone which would have provided the only true action in the film. Ultimately forgettable.
47 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The name's Bond, James Bond....or is it?
The_Void2 November 2008
Martin Campbell's reboot of the James Bond series, Casino Royale, received praise and criticism in equal measures for the fact that it steps away from the James Bond trademarks. This film continues down that path and actually moves things even further away from the Bond tradition. I have to say that I'm not the biggest Bond fan myself and so this didn't bother me too much; but I won't be surprised to find that many Bond fans are not Quantum of Solace fans. As a thriller in its own right, however, the 22nd Bond movie is action packed and entertaining; and certainly a lot better than its title! The film follows on directly from Casino Royale and features James Bond attempting to find revenge for the death of his love who died at the end of the first film. He sets out to get to the bottom of the organisation that was behind her blackmail and intelligence links him to Haiti, where after hooking up with the beautiful and feisty Camille, he is lead to ruthless "charitable" businessman Dominic Greene and discovers a plot by the shady organisation known as 'Quantum' to take control of the world's most important natural resource.

The lack of gadgets is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of differences between the classic Bond film and this reboot. Daniel Craig is a million miles away from the likes of Sean Connery in terms of looks and persona; and his Bond is not even similar in character. While still suave, this James Bond at times comes across more as a highly trained assassin than a secret agent; and only one scene that sees James give British Intelligence the slip in a hotel really reminded me of the resourceful spy seen in the older Bond films. The plot really allows the lead character to show his darker side; but in essence the film is just a collection of stunt sequences and kill scenes; which while undoubtedly entertaining, it not what most people will expect from a Bond film. However, in its own right the film certainly has a lot of positives. The cinematography is gorgeous and this is more than matched by the beautiful locations; which include Italy, Haiti and South America. The best thing about it for me was the casting of Olga Kurylenko as the Bond girl. Again not the typical Bond girl, but she sure is nice to look at! Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) takes the directors chair and is actually more geared up towards providing the action scenes than I thought he would be; but several of them are edited together badly and lack tension as a result. The film attempts to tie itself to the rest of the Bond series by way of a Goldfinger-style death scene; and while it's undoubtedly very cool, it doesn't really fit in with the rest of it and comes off like an afterthought. So to surmise - is The Quantum of Solace an entertaining action thriller? Unquestionably yes. But is it a James Bond movie? Unfortunately not.
Perhaps not one of the great Bond films, but an ultimately worthy entry in the series.
ametaphysicalshark12 November 2008
Whether or not you liked "Casino Royale", and most people certainly did, Roger Moore fanatics probably excluded (hey, I respect their opinion), it was something Bond had never been before, and it surprised a lot of people and reinvigorated genuine interest in Bond after "Die Another Day" by which point it was frankly becoming an obligation to attend the new Bond film rather than a pleasure. After the emotionally charged story, and particularly the climax, of "Casino Royale", the bar was set very high for the follow-up.

Does "Quantum of Solace" deliver? Well, honestly, the answer to that depends almost entirely on what you were expecting. If you were expecting a lengthy, down-to-earth, 'realistic' ('plausible' is probably a better description for "Casino Royale") character-based revenge flick, "Quantum of Solace" is not it. What "Quantum of Solace" does is weave the characterization into the plot and action to the point where we don't have room to breathe. The criticisms against the movie for lacking in character development are downright absurd- it's all there, the movie just doesn't stop and explicitly tell you what it's doing. If you're paying attention to what Bond's doing throughout the film surely you will understand why he is motivated to do those things. It's pretty careful and refined writing from Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with the addition of script polisher/editor Paul Haggis).

What "Quantum of Solace" doesn't do is deliver a repeat of "Casino Royale". I'm actually quite amazed at the venomous reaction to the film by fans who seem to adore the more humorous, faster-moving Bond films. I mean, this isn't exactly right up their alley, but it's sure as hell not as drawn-out and slow-moving (although I didn't feel that was a bad thing in CR's case) as "Casino Royale", it surely doesn't spend most of its time on the dialogue and characterization, and it surely isn't as significantly divergent from the Bond formula as that film was. This is, ultimately, not unlike several Bond films we've seen before. There's snarling foreign villains with accents, a shadowy evil organization with political motivations, there's plenty, plenty of action. The "Bourne" comparisons are especially confounding. So, because Robert Ludlum once took from the Bond character and stories to write his "Bourne" novels, the Bond film series can't go back to Bond's roots in Fleming's great novels for inspiration? I'd say that "Quantum" has more in common with Bond films of the past than any of the Bourne films. If they're talking about the action scenes here, then while they lack the coherence of some of the greatest action scenes in Bond history, they are still much easier to follow than anything in Greengrass' "Bourne" films. Outside the first 15 minutes there's barely anything here that resembles a Bourne film at all, actually. The first two action scenes- the car chase and foot chase- are over-edited for sure, but the rest of the action scenes are grand, particularly the plane scene and climactic action scene at the hotel.

The technical aspects of the film are all good, director Marc Forster doesn't mess up (which, given the quality of many of his previous films, was perhaps the greatest danger this Bond installment faced) the David Arnold score is not one of the great Bond scores, and his (or the producers') refusal to use an orchestral version of the score much during the actual film is quite frustrating, but it's quite good and certainly not among the worst scores the series has had. Craig is an absolutely superb Bond, Olga Kurylenko is a find Bond girl and fairly well-developed but not at the expense of Bond or the story, while Gemma Arterton's limited screen time is an unnecessary diversion. Arterton's not the only flaw here, the design is a bit naff at times, and there's several things that could have been done better, especially during the first 15 minutes, but the movie works as a whole, and it's not nearly as humorless as some are suggesting; there's some genuinely funny stuff here, without descending into over-the-top camp. Actually, "Quantum of Solace" sees a welcome return of a deadpan delivery to the one-liners which evokes Connery's best moments. No winking at the camera, no raised eyebrows, just the jokes. Felix grabbing a beer and looking nonchalant as the SWAT team tried and failed to capture Bond, Bond stealing the bike from under the informant ("I missed!"), Bond and M at the hotel... So many great moments.

"Quantum of Solace" is perhaps not one of the great Bond films, and while I would not like to see "Quantum of Solace" become the template which the Bond series will follow in the future (it is only completely satisfying when taken in context as part of a larger storyline), it is still not just a good action thriller, but an often gloriously enjoyable Bond film, and a fine entry in the series.

8/10
1/10
We loved Moneypenny, Q and M. Why did you take it all away?
AccessCardRequired12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
199 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went twice to see this movie. First on the Berlin Premiere, second time a week later. Why? Well, on premiere night I had tickets in row 7, of a huge theatre. I was hugely excited to see the new Bond (as I always have been for the past 25 some years). But hey, I had to LEAVE the theatre after 15 minutes. You simply can't watch that fast edited MTV Style movie in row 7 (!). No chance, absolutely. Okay so I went again, this time a nice seat all the way at the end of the same theatre. I could endure the MTV cuts, but not the massacre the producers did to Bond. (the director can't be held responsible, since the producers chose him and not vice versa).

In 21 previous Bond films, one could really like the British super spy. His character, his smartness, some cool one liners, and yes, Ms. Broccoli, we the audience loved the gadgets. We loved Moneypenny, Q and M. Why did you take it all away? Why? We may never know...

This Bond is just another action flick with a really mediocre storyline. For heavens sake, change the characters name, and you are not in one single moment reminded of the great super spy. Why bother then?

For the action: Filming hand held and edit MTV style does not mean action automatically! The great Frankenheimer knew that, when he filmed some of the best car chases in "Ronin", Foster probably never saw that classic....

For a reminder, since it comes up so many times in reviews on IMDb, Bond and Borne are two completely different franchises. Borne is chasing after his history, while Bond is saving the world. Just because Borne was such a huge success, don't try imitate him. Arrgh what a terrible film, it is such a shame. Regardless of what the box office says!

P.S. and then you even dare to take away the gun barrel montage in the beginning, and no more "Bond, James Bond. Are you people mental?
4/10
Weak plot, idiotic direction and progressively more disappointing.
joachimokeefe8 November 2008
I'll start positive - the very watchable Daniel Craig has nailed Bond as well as Connery did for his time, and QoS manages in many scenes to supersede the glamorous traveloguery of the earlier franchise. There are a (very) few jokes, the totty isn't just totty, and they've also slightly toned down the CGI and product placement from CR, which can only be a good thing. (Though Bond's phone never loses coverage, never needs charging, and zooms in on single faces in a crowd of thousands. At night. Is it nuclear powered?) But QoS isn't much bang for your buck. It's just an extended chase, which would be okay if Marc Forster hadn't made such a truly, unforgivably dreadful job of the action sequences. In Bond, you're expecting stunt work much like a great circus act - you want to be blown away by the skill and ingenuity of the performers. But Marc Forster's direction completely gets in the way. He literally loses sight of the action every time a sequence comes up; the only one that half works in spite of his pretentiousness is the plane chase. This means that you leave the film unsatisfied by the weak plot because you couldn't follow the action that would have made up for it. Meanwhile any Bond character development you've heard about is minimal, Judi Dench still doesn't understand the character she's playing, and the final climax is a clichéd and dismal melodrama. (Imagine 'Backdraft' on a budget). A final point: it would have been far more accurate, funny, and true to the 'Bond reboot' to see the British Secret Service struggling with ancient clunky technology, rather than that unbelievable super-slick Minority Report-style system, which is plainly a pathetic nod to the action film competition - and maybe the sponsor.
8/10
So cool
Smells_Like_Cheese16 November 2008
After seeing Casino Royale a few months ago, I realized something, there is a big re-imagining of the James Bond series. James Bond is now more serious, a little darker, and has a lot more edge. I grew up with the 007 films, my dad and I watched them together all the time, they were always a blast to watch. Now I'm grown up and Daniel Craig is the new James Bond and he is so cool and smooth, he's taken on a very charismatic Bond, he'd make Sean Connery proud. Quantum of Solace is the very first James Bond movie that is actually a sequel, it continues right where Casino Royale took off, so there is no off set when it comes to the story. The action is jam packed, I loved a lot of the action/fight scenes incredibly, but I'd say it's a notch below Casio Royale since the director didn't seem to know how to edit well in those sequences, because I don't know about you, but I couldn't tell what was going on or who was getting hit. But the story is a great continence to Casino Royale.

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M interrogate Mr White who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined. Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille, a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene, a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organization.

Quantum of Solace is completely worth the watch, it was a lot of fun, it has it's small flaws. I think the editing just could have been a little better, like I said, some scenes go so fast that you can barely keep your head on from turning side by side. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, he is still incredibly cool to watch. However, Olga Kurylenko, pretty girl, but not exactly the most interesting "Bond Girl", nothing about her really stood out to me, so I hope they'll do better the next film. However, I did enjoy Quantum of Solace, it's a great action film and an excellent addition to the Bond series.

8/10
6/10
MGM Spent $200 Million$ & Got "Quantum of SAMEolce, SAMEolce"!
KissEnglishPasto31 July 2016
From PASTO, COLOMBIA-Via: L. A. CA; CALI, COLOMBIA+ORLANDO, FL ------------The ONLY Tony Kiss Castillo on FaceBook!------------------

(Read Review TITLE LINE FIRST!) Too much, apparently, methinks, for what ends up being a fair to middling action popcorn flick. Opening credits over and BAM!... Overblown car chase. At that moment we really don't know who is chasing Bond, or why, but then he's Bond! Who cares, right?!? Well, I, for one, do and certainly I'm not alone.

Soon after this opening car chase we discover that some hitherto unknown sinister organization which, despite being ubiquitous, has managed to stay under the radar and remain totally undetected, is posing the biggest current threat to world stability. Boy! We've never heard that one before, huh?

Don't get me wrong. As I said here, at the beginning, "Solace" is, as action movies go, fairly entertaining. What I find just a bit sad is that the Bond franchise, despite this huge budget, can't come up with anything better. There were a few other things that bothered me, that perhaps would go unnoticed by most viewers. The characters were supposed to be speaking Spanish with a Bolivian accent. Well, instead... there were Mexican, Iberian, Caribbean and eastern European accents. The taxi-driver, at least, sounded Bolivian!!!

Both Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko tried their best within the constraints of an unmemorable script (Paul Haggis-screenplay Crash/Million Dollar Baby) and direction that seemed focused on getting as quickly as possible to the next action sequence (Mark Forster-Stranger than Fiction/ Monster's Ball). Still, for the hardcore action/Bond enthusiasts out there, you'll undoubtedly like it a lot more than I did.

5.5* rounded up to 6 ******.....ENJOY!/DISFRUTELA!
8/10
A different kind of Bond
simonparker199031 October 2008
When Casino Royale arrived two years ago I was a very happy person. I was one of what feels like the few people that actually wanted Craig to do well as Bond. I wasn't moaning about him being blonde, I wasn't moaning about the lack of gadgets, I was just happy to see one of my favourite fictional characters back on screen. As many people know I am a huge Bond fan, I have all the movies, I love them all in their unique way, and even if Casino Royale had been a disaster I would have found some enjoyment out of it. Thankfully it wasn't a disaster, it was actually one of the best Bond movies made. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel of Royale, and so I once again had high expectations of it. Perhaps even more so than with Royale, as now I knew Craig is a superb Bond, and I wanted the story to evolve more. Let me start off by saying Solace is not as good as Royale, and for many people that will be a problem, as so many people were expecting an even better movie. While it is an extremely good movie, and a brilliant Bond movie, its just not one of the best and does have a few problems. Still as a Bond fan I still absolutely loved nearly every minute of the movie. It isn't overlong and outstays its welcome like Royale, but neither is it rushed as I feared. The performances are incredibly strong once again and there are some thrilling action sequences thrown in as well.

Daniel Craig once again is very strong as Bond, and unlike what a lot of critics have said, is actually good fun. He can deliver a pun quite well, and he also does the dramatic and seriousness of Bond to perfection. In short he is definitely up there in terms of quality with Sean Connery. He feels a bit more comfortable as Bond this time around, he doesn't have to say the famous line which sadly felt a tad forced at the end of Royale. Instead he does get his fair share of brooding, although his verbal sparring with Gemma Arterton is pretty brilliant. The lead Bond girl this time is played by Olga Kurylenko, who I last saw in the dismal Hit-man movie. Thankfully here she plays a very interesting, although different Bond girl. She doesn't appear much for the first half, and her first sequence seemed more random than interesting. However she does develop quite nicely and by the end she is definitely one of the better Bond girls. Lead villain duties go to Mathieu Amalric. I have to say he was a bit of a disappointment after the brilliant Lechiffre in Royale. Amalric is a slimy villain, and he does put in a good performance, but his villain just isn't all that menacing, and I can see him being one of the easily forgettable Bond baddies. Judi Dench gets an awful lot more screen time this time round, and its all the better for it. M has been rewritten as a superb character, and gets some nice bit of swearing to do. Finally Gemma Arterton is fairly decent as a wasted Bond girl. She has way too little screen time, and far too little to do, however she does shine through, and features in one of the more memorable moments of the movie.

Quantum of Solace story wise is perhaps where the problems begin to slip in. Royale's story was simple and very easy to follow, while Quantum is nowhere near as confusing as people are making it out to be, the movie is a bit overcomplicated for its own good. The villains plan is nowhere near as diabolical as it really could be, and I feel I need to watch the movie again just to get the intricate details of the movie. However as most Bond fans know story is not always a Bond movies strong point, just look at Live and Let Die, Die Another Day. So long as it manages to entertain I am quite happy. Solace thankfully is a brilliantly entertaining movie for the majority. I will admit, the pre-credit sequence is a very big disappointment. I know the stunts were good, and it should have been thrilling, but I felt so oddly bored by it. However once the credits sequence began, to a song I am steadily coming to like, the movie kicked off. The rest of the action sequences were particularly well done, my personal favourite being a bit in an opera house, extremely well edited. Drama wise the movie is very solid, there are some lighter moments to keep people happy, and some amusing one liners, but the movie for the most part is pretty down to earth.

Quantum of Solace as I've said is a great movie, and no doubt many people will love it, although some will be a bit disappointed by it. Either way Craig is still a great Bond, and I cannot wait to see more adventures with him as the lead. Although we could do with a more interesting villain next time round please.
4/10
a bad bond film
MLDinTN12 April 2010
I thought this movie was terrible. First of all, there is no plot. Something about revenge but if you didn't watch Casino Royal right before, then it makes no sense. It's been over a year since I've seen Casino Royal, so I didn't remember much that carries on into this film. So Bond is after revenge for his girl's death from Royal and something about going to Bolivia and chasing a guy that is trying to buy much of Bolivia's water supply in order to get rich. He teams up with this chick, Camille, whom is after a general that killed her father. But she's not like a typical Bond chick because Bond doesn't get romantic with her.

The way the action scenes were filmed was terrible. The camera was so shaky and just quick flashes; you couldn't even tell what was happening. And I don't like how this Bond is just out to kill people. Pierce Bronson's Bond was never like that. It makes him cold blooded and you don't want to root for him.

FINAL VERDICT: I could barely make it through this movie, it was so boring because there is no story to follow. I don't recommend it.
6/10
Went to see a Bond movie and got a Jason Bourne interpretation instead!
zekisadic22 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
464 out of 657 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the critically acclaimed and much successful 'Casino Royale' I had hopes that 'Quantum of Solace' could rival this years best movie so far: 'The Dark Knight'. Well... it doesn't even come close.

There use to be a time when Bond movies where trendsetting...

I remember when director Doug Liman some time ago said he wanted to make "Bond for a new generation" - so he dug up Jason Bourne. Several received Oscars and years later, we now have the Bond franchise mimicking the Bourne franchise instead. How ironic. If you are a Bond fan like me, and - when the endcredits roll - think to yourself that the movie you just saw had more in common with the last two Bourne-movies, than the first 21 Bond-movies, then you know there's a problem!

On paper Quantum of Solace may be a Bond movie. But many of those things that people use to associate with Bond movies are gone. Some for no obvious purpose or reason.

It wasn't enough for them to take away Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the humor and witticism, his "shaken, not stirred", the line "my name is Bond, James Bond." They even ditched the famous opening gunbarrel-sequence, and you won't hear the James Bond theme right until the very end (as in Casino Royale which - besides being 40 minutes longer - "felt" more like a Bond movie)

And what's up with this new style of filming and editing?

Well, they hired the editor, the stuntteam and 2nd unit director of... yes, you guessed it - the Bourne movies. So do not under any circumstance buy tickets for the first 10 rows - you will regret it. I was sitting in the 15th row at an advance fan-screening and even there I would be reaching for my seasickness-pills if I had any.

Because with this annoying new MTV-style editing (which is suppose to add "realism") known from the Bourne-movies with shaking hand-held cameras in which you have a hard time following what really is happening on screen, especially in a crowded surrounding, you will be better off sitting as far back as possible in the theatre. Luckily this style is - unlike Bourne 2 and 3 - not incorporated into every single scene in Quantum of Solace. Far from it. But it's there, and it's very annoying, in my opinion. It actually ruined much of the first two action set-pieces for me, and by then we were only 30 minutes into the movie.

Quantum of Solace is very fastpaced, like a Bourne/Bond-movie should be. We jump from location to location, actionsequence to actionsequence. It can be very confusing watching Bond on a rampage still dealing with "personal issues" (like Bourne). Bourne Ultimatum had a rooftop-chase. So does Quantum of Solace. Bourne Ultimatum had a fistfight in a small cluttered apartment filmed the way I mentioned earlier. Well, so does Quantum of Solace. How original!

It's like they took some of the best parts of the two last Bournemovies and said "let's do almost the exact same thing and add something more, like letting him fly a plane." So Bond does that, in what I think is the second-best part of the movie. The best part for me, was oddly enough not an actionsequence, but when Bond for once does some real spywork on a floating operastage accompanied by a great music score. Very Bondian.

For this, for Dennis Gassners terrific production design, for David Arnolds usual great score and for Craigs cool performance, I give it six stars.

A note to the producers of the Bond movies: Now that you played around with Bourne, can we have 007 back for Bond 23, please?
2/10
I blame Bourne
shanayneigh20 March 2009
Ever since the two last Bourne movies came out and made a bit of money, the film industry has suffered from a severe case of ADD. It now seems mandatory for directors to partake in the George Lucas "faster-more-intense" and Paul Greengrass "shakycam-mounted-on-top-of-paint-blender" schools of film making, only now it's called "contemporary gritty action." It seems like the whole movie was shot hand held with a 200mm lens, operated by a guy with Parkinson's disease. As icing on the cake, no cut is longer than three frames.

I guess the underlying logic is that this will make the movie more "real" and "documentary-like". The only thing it makes me feel is nauseous. I can't stand this trend in film making. To be honest, it feels like a cop out, like they can't trust their stunt team to do well enough, and have to shield their performance in shaky images and hysterical cutting. And surprise surprise, it turns out that the second unit director of this movie, Dan Bradley, worked on the last two Bourne movies.

But technical aspects aside, the story was less than engaging, which is a shame since I have an interest in the specific MacGuffin of the movie, having even written an academic article about it.

I think the main problem is that I don't really care about any of the characters. Craig may stare intensely and bite down as hard as he wants to, but I still don't really care about Bond. It's not that I don't like the Bond movies (I own all the other movies on DVD), I just don't buy this new story line where they try to make him into a sort of Bourne-light. I say let Bourne be Bourne, and Bond be Bond.

Olga Kurylenko sure is pretty to look at, but her character here is about as memorable as her character in Max Payne: one big yawn. As for Mathieu Almaric, he feels a bit too pathetic to be a criminal mastermind, although I like the whole thing that they don't give him an eye patch or scars, but that he's ordinary looking.

This was one incoherent mess of a film (what was the deal with the horse race?) that I'm not likely to watch again, nor am I likely to purchase the DVD.
6/10
Quorum of Stinkus
dunmore_ego6 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Stunt, stunt, stunt, crash. Explosion.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE, directed by Marc Foster like a speed freak on crank and edited by Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson like a chicken fight in a monkey house, makes THE BOURNE IDENTITY look like MY DINNER WITH ANDRE.

As I watched the opening car chase grind metal, and the subsequent foot chase beat streets through an Italian town during a horse race, one question kept surfacing: Did I accidentally walk into TRANSPORTER 3?

QUANTUM OF SOLACE exists only for its next popcorn chase sequence only to show off its next stunt, with editing that will maim your optic nerves. Your eyes will start hurting long before you realize there's nothing on screen worth watching.

Daniel Craig, still chiseled like a Grecian statue, still super-cool and super-cruel, is listed as playing Ian Fleming's super-spy character, James Bond.

But is it still Bond? Having recently watched two of Pierce Brosnan's outings (GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY), I see that Brosnan (a perfect Bond, I might add) never colored so far outside the lines of the character that he became not just unrecognizable, but indistinguishable from the morass of other taut-buttocked man-toys glutting the action hero landscape. That's the tragedy here - Craig could be Jason Statham or Clive Owen or Jet Li; the Bond franchise might have been resurrected/reimagined in CASINO ROYALE, but there is not enough "essence of Bond" left by venturing so far outside the box in QUANTUM.

There is still the suaveness, sure, but the infamous Bond gadgets? Not a trace, except maybe the soaring height of computer technology displayed by the whole MI6 organization. Aston Martin? Only a banged up version in the opening car chase. Flamboyant villain? Well, he's indeterminately Euro with designs on absolute power. Ironic banter? Nope. Quips? Nope. Sex with leading lady? Nope - instead, a glorified extra. Even the catchphrase, "Bond. James Bond" is absent. And the laughable Bond death-traps where - like the 1960s Batman - he is left to die in some contraption with a countdown that allows him just enough time to find an improbable escape with no one watching? Bond actually turns the table on this one, leaving the villain in the desert with only a can of motor oil to sustain him.

Written by the talented Paul Haggis, the Evil Plot in this Bond film is congruent with today's morally muddy politics, where a shady "green" entrepreneur, Gordon Greene (Mathieu Amalric), deals hand-in-glove with the CIA and the British government, who both admit, "if we didn't do business with villains we wouldn't be doing business at all." Of course, Greene's ultimate aim is power over others - in this case, monopolizing the water supply in Bolivia, using "environmentalism" as a cover.

For those not paying attention, there are the eye-straining fight scenes and chase scenes to keep you amused: car chase, boat chase, plane chase, moped chase, foot chase across rooftops (where've I seen that before? Oh yeah - the last Bond film!), wholesale destruction following in the wake of Bond and his pursuers.

Meanwhile, that wrinkled old man in charge of MI6, Judi Dench, goes swishing about doubting Bond's trust because he is mooning over a chick who got murdered in the last film. So Bond goes rogue long enough to plonk a newbie bimbo by the name of Fields, then finds her dead like the chick in GOLDFINGER, covered in oil instead of gold. (Black gold?, heh heh--Waitaminute! Even if you were dipped in crude oil like a shrimp cocktail, wouldn't it just slide off? How does it cake her body like black syrup?)

And the leading lady - in these films, termed Bond Girl - Olga Kurylenko, doesn't even schtupp Bond! Isn't that the POINT of being a Bond Girl?! Detached to the point of boring, Kurylenko's ice queen character is ironic, playing some kind of double-agent with a burn scar on her back that I couldn't stop looking at, tooling about a searing desertscape, trapped in a hotel fire - yet generating not one iota of heat. Let's face it: Bond's universe is no place for a woman too independent. Our primal instincts felt the old magic when dippy Fields bantered with Bond, but that misogynistic fun was not to last. Excuse the pun, but - 18 million cracks, my arse!

Why does everyone moan about the title? Does anyone know what Quantum means outside of physicists and Scott Bakula fans? (From IMDb:) According to Henry Chancellor in his book James Bond - The Man and His World, "Quantum of Solace" relates to the necessary iota of emotion that is needed between lovers.

Now tenuously link this with Bond seeking revenge for his last bébé and the villainous organization named Quantum. Thank the junkets we don't have to view the film for this info, which takes us from Haiti, to Italy, Bolivia, Austria, London, Russia, and leaves us north of Eye-Strain.

QUANTUM opens with the good ole sexploitation gimmick of sand dunes as naked women, Alicia Keys and John White singing, Another Way to Die; closes with the gun barrel motif and classic Bond theme music.

Just like the last film, Bond's healing abilities are like Wolverine: every little face cut - healed by the next scene. In CASINO ROYALE, he plonked Vesper Lynn mere days after his mandacious torture - can the franchise heal itself as quickly as Wolverine Bond's ballsac?
It Seems Like the Director and Editors Wanted to be the Stars
Michael_Elliott10 November 2012
Quantum of Solace (2008)

** (out of 4)

Weak sequel to CASINO ROYALE has Daniel Craig returning for his second stint as James Bond. This time out he must try and stop a man (Mathieu Amalric) from trying to control the water supply in the world. Or something to that effect. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a fair movie on its own but as a Bond film it's a major disappointment on so many levels that it's really not fair to even call it a Bond movie. I mean, everything memorable about a Bond film is missing here from Q to Moneypenny to brains and thrills. This is such a strange movie to watch because it seems that the director (Marc Forster) and editors wanted to be the star of the picture. Just take a look at the opening action sequence, which really has nothing to do with anything else in the film. The scene is very fast, the edits are very quick and it's really impossible to see anything that's going on. This here is okay for an action picture but a Bond picture is supposed to have brains to where the action has the hero having to think his way out of the situation. That doesn't happen in this scene or any of the action scenes that follow and it appears that the director and editors just want to put their style all over the screen no matter how much it harms the picture. But then again, perhaps they did this because they knew the story they were working on seemed incomplete, boring and just not satisfying at all. Craig is perfect as Bond but there's just nothing he can do here. Judy Dench is fine as well but again can't save anything. Olga Kurylenko is pretty forgettable as the sexy woman and Amalric is one of the least interesting villains in the series' history. QUANTUM OF SOLICE is just a downright mess of a film and one that can easily be skipped.
3/10
Bond Without Any of the Action, Spectacle, or Fun You'd Expect
jaredpahl7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the follow-up to the electrifying reboot of the 007 franchise, Casino Royale. By the end of that film, I have to say, I was ecstatic about the direction the Bond films were heading. If you haven't seen it, Casino Royale told what was basically a James Bond origin story. It showed how Bond became the legend we see today, and by the film's end, it seemed as though Bond was back. It gave the impression that the next film would show 007 in all his classic glory, with action, gadgets, exotic locations, and spy thrills. Instead, Quantum of Solace turns out to be a hollow, depressing exercise in new age "gritty" action movies.

I won't bother with the story of Quantum of Solace because frankly, I didn't understand it. What I do know is that the interesting, over-the-top villains and their diabolical schemes are long gone from this Bond flick. Replaced instead with bland, confusing political espionage, and a completely forgettable bad guy (And I mean FORGETTABLE. The only thing I can remember about him was that he wore a suit), Quantum of Solace ditches the traditional Bond formula in favor of "realism". Unfortunately, realism doesn't translate to quality.

Even accounting for the incomprehensible plot and forgettable characters, there is still something in Quantum of Solace to, at the very least, get excited about. That thing would be the action. I remember seeing the trailer and being absolutely giddy. "A classic Aston Martin car chase, a speedboat set-piece, a breathtaking motorbike stunt, and a hand-to-hand fight, Bond is back baby!". In the actual film, these shots are undeniably great, but the big catch is that all (yes, all) of the action from the trailer takes place during the opening scene of the film. The film's best stunts, set-pieces, and moments are stuffed into one five-minute sequence at the very start of the movie, leaving the rest of the film to sit flat as a board until the equally underwhelming climax.

Quantum of Solace is not a Bond film. The fun typically associated with James Bond is nowhere to be found, and the bookend action scenes are certainly not enough to overcome this. Now, Bond can be realistic; I think Casino Royale and even Skyfall did a great job of putting Bond in a realistic setting. The difference is that those films retained the elements that make the James Bond franchise great. Quantum of Solace is embarrassed by the classic Bond films, ditching anything fun and anything over- the-top in favor of "gritty realism". The result is a completely joyless endeavor, and one of the worst Bond movies of them all.

30/100
5/10
Not a Quantum of Fun
kenjha9 April 2010
In this 22th entry in the series and the second with Craig, Agent 007 is on a path of vengeance for the death of his girlfriend. A serious and angry Bond is no fun. Perhaps that's why this is the worst entry since "License to Kill," the last time it became personal for him as he sought those responsible for shooting his CIA buddy Felix Leiter. Leiter is fine now, except that he's turned into a black man. The action scenes are so poorly shot and edited that it's impossible to figure our who's doing what to whom. Unfortunately the first 30 minutes is all mindless action with no discernible plot. Craig's Bond is dour and charmless. One positive is that it's shortest film in the series.
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Horrible editing/cutting/directing. But all else was good!
SPZMaxinema13 October 2021
The amount of quick cuts in the action scenes in this movie is inexcusable and enough to make your head spin out of control. The director is trying too hard to make James Bond be like the Bourne movies, which doesn't work. Other than that, a chilling ending, a beautiful Bond woman, Daniel Craig, and a villain that makes your skin crawl is what makes this movie not too bad!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
This is not Bond...
buiger21 January 2010
I totally agree with Ebert. James Bond is definitely not an action hero, he is a myth, a state of mind. Therefore, Quantum of Solace is not a Bond movie, it is something else. Something I don't like at all. I didn't like Casino Royale, and I like Quantum of Solace even less. Call me old-fashioned, call me nostalgic, but I do long for the times when Bond had style, class (Craig does wear immaculately tailored suits, but in essence is nothing but a thug when compared to Connery or Moore), had time to talk, have sex, dry martinis, etc.

And then there is the action... Less (much less) would have been more. The movie is basically nothing else but a series of ridiculous, over the top action scenes which are totally incomprehensible, unbelievable and unrealistic. To top it off, the sound in the movie is so bad, you can barely discern the dialog (the little that is there) and the action scenes are yes, deafening but that is all they are. How could they have produced such bad sound in a major, high budget production in the 21st century is a mystery to me (I saw the movie with DTS sound on blu-ray and a top-notch audio system, so there is no excuse there...).

All in all, in my eyes a total flop; This is not Bond, this is something else.
8/10
I liked it better than the previous one
margineanvladdaniel17 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't know how to explain it, but it kept me hooked more than Casino Royale. More action and more suspense. The fact that everyone is doubting everyone makes it more interesting. Looking forward for the next one!
5/10
a quasi Bond a'la triple X
krzysiektom13 November 2008
What a band of clueless idiots wrote, directed and produced this film. Someone should have told them before that the general public is tired of this new fashion of quick editing, cutting the action scenes and fights to pieces so that the viewer sees... nothing. It is an awful film-making method, which spoilt greatly "Gladiator" for me and then several other action films, including this one. Large chinks of the Decalogue are totally cliché and boring. To have such a product, such a budget and choose a talentless director and a mediocre script is very disappointing. I like the them song though, contrary to most I consider it one of the strongest Bond songs of all time. I hope to see more fun, joy of living dangerously and expensively and more sophistication in the next Bond. Finally, someone wrote here that Judy Dench is in fact always the same, I agree. She must be the most overrated actress ever.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Where Was Bond?This Is Just A Action Movie
FilmMan4721 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i mean it from the title of my review that this is just a action film like Steven segal do it, where was James bond the character we all know.

Daniel Craig?is this guy even a bond? no never he lacks everything to be bond what was he doing in casino royale & in this film he doubles it. killing people without a reason,i am so sorry but please no offense to Daniel Craig fans but this movie is junk & slap to James bond fans.

from start to end we see only action & Daniel Craig making weird faces like he is suffering from constipation.you people call that acting oh boy he don't say the bond lines & no gadgets but you got to be charming like brosnan did in his films.

this is the story about bond going after oil & evil organization quantum controlled by Dominique green..

i have casino royale & Qos on DVD but i watch it only as action film.

good by to good old James bond this franchise is ruined.thanks to Barbra broccoli & Daniel Craig.

my rating is 1/10 worst bond movie .watch it only as action film
4/10
Not Bond
masterjk217 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It only gets a "4" because Craig is so good. But really, just one chase scene after another? Perhaps "Run Rabbit Run" would have been more appropriate, only he's deadly. There is little of the panache of many of the previous Bonds. No regulars, except "M", which stands for muddled... never knowing whether to praise him or have him killed. No Q No Moneypenny No sex

No interest.

Just Jason Bond... action hero... In fact a Marvel of one. I've seen so much of this tripe of fast car, fast boat, fast plane, fast foot chases that I'm bored with it. Sure, it's well done (better than the almost non existent dialogue) but it's boring. Nice scenery.

Too bad. could have been good, I think, with a screenwriter.
5/10
Action-packed...but it has almost no story.
planktonrules12 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am probably not exactly the target audience for "Quantum of Solace". After all, my biggest complaint about the James Bond series is that over the years the films have become more and more and more stunt-oriented (which means less and less plot-driven). While the series has always had its stunts, my favorite films are the earlier, less stunt-intensive ones. The latest batch from Daniel Craig have turned the uber-stunt craze of the films into high gear--though I did really enjoy "Casino Royale". I can easily understand why he suffered so many injuries during the filming of "Quantum of SOlace"--the stunts are insane. The best of Craig's three Bond films was the first ("Casino Royale")--the one with the least dramatic stunts and most plot. Perhaps this should tell the studio something. They might save a few dollars and make better films if they considered this.

So is there much plot beyond all the action? Well, not really...or at least not much. An organization named 'QUANTUM' plans on cornering the market on oil...or water. And, like SPECTRE, they are a multinational organization dedicated to destabilizing nations and behind the scenes control of the world. Bond doesn't like them and spends the film chasing them. That's really all there is to it.

I think of this film like kids who get underwear for Christmas. Their hearts are set for the big day and what did Santa bring? A bike, a new game system or a football? Nope...underwear! That is what it was like having "Quantum of Solace" following the wonderful Bond film "Casino Royale"!! Too many dumb stunts, too many disconnected scenes, too little plot and practically no chance for James Craig to act, as he's always running, shooting and avoiding being shot!! A huge disappointment. And, by the way, the opening song sucked! $200,000,000 for all that?!

UPDATE: After sending in this review to IMDb, I had to add one more thing. At the end of the film, Bond has captured the guy responsible for EVERYTHING and lets him go to a possible death or not! What the $%** was that?! Who thought this was an appropriate way to end the film?!
7/10
Good But Should Have Been Better
Theo Robertson2 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There had been some very Luke warm reviews of QOS when it was released last week . Perhaps one of the reasons being that CASINO ROYALE was so good that anything else after it would disappoint . So I popped in to the cinema to make up my own mind

Most of the best aspects remain from CASINO ROYALE . Daneil Craig if not the best Bond ever is certainly the best actor to have played him and his interaction with Judi Dench's M has plenty of on screen chemistry . Mathieu Amalric's villain Dominic Greene follows in the tradition of the Craig era Bond baddies in that he's not a megalomaniac sitting in a bunker trying to destroy the world , just a very greedy man wanting to make lots of money and killing anyone in stands in the way of his corporation . One can't help thinking that maybe a little more screen time could have been dedicated to character interaction

There are a few problems . As David Mahmet once said " You believe anything in film if you don't have reason to disbelieve it " so little bits like characters being able to see in an underground cave devoid of any light are something you may forgive down to cinematic conventions . There's also an assassin who looks like Rowan Atkinson in THE BLACK ADDER complete with an identical hairstyle ! I also wished the producers had a little more courage in keeping Greene as a self appointed self righteous environmentalist guardian right up to the end . If you've seen THE EIGER SANCTION you'll know where the screenwriters got Greene's fate from

Minor flaws that you can forgive . What is impossible to forgive however is some quite atrocious editing in the action scenes where everything is so " blink and you'll miss it " What makes it even worse is that director Marc Forster has some great visual ideas , especially a shoot out in a restaurant where the only sound heard on screen is the non diegetic sound of an opera but all this is bloody ruined by subliminal editing where shot lengths are micro seconds ! You'll have to see the movie to find out how terrible this looks . In fact a large per centage of the movie feels like it ended up on the cutting room floor

There's two ways of looking at this . One is the positive opinion in that QOS is infinitely better than some of the crap we saw under the Bond banner in the 70s and 80s , perhaps even better than some of the lesser Brosnan films . That is the correct opinion . The negative opinion is that QOS is ultimately disappointing in many ways and should have been better . Unfortunately that is also the correct opinion
1/10
Another disaster... yet again
santiagocii10 November 2008
One more time... after the intense action but zero Bond factor movie (Casino Royale) the filmmakers decide to pull this sequel of overall nonsense. Yes, yes.. previous Bond's movies also contained tons of science fiction and unreasonable events... yet, all of them were covered with the Charm and wits of the perfectly trained, smart and handsome super spy named Bond.. James Bond. Today... we have this totally unrefined dude, who kills more like a gangster, who spends 99% of his time frowning or doing weird things with his mouth like ZOOLANDER!!!! The plot is ludicrous.. the villains are even more ludicrous than the star actor.. I saw people yawning at the theatre!! The best part of the movie must have been the first 5 minutes of car chasing, and not because of the actor or the chasing itself but due to the amazing Aston Martin DBS. I find it hard, really hard to understand how people keep on scoring this movie or its predecessor with 7 or 8... Something must be wrong.. really wrong.
79 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond as Killing Machine
Turfseer30 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After being extremely disappointed with 'Casino Royale' (with an ordinary poker game as its primary action sequence), I was happy to see that the producers of Quantum of Solace decided to bring back 'Bond' to its action-packed roots. I am still trying to get used to Daniel Craig as Bond however. He's about the opposite of the urbane, sophisticated and witty character initially developed by the greatest Bond of them all, Sean Connery. Daniel Craig is closer to a Steve McQueen type but unable to capture McQueen's true 'bad boy' persona. Craig's interest in women is minimal (he spends a very short time in bed in Quantum of Solace). In this new version of Bond, he's a trained killer who rarely shows emotion (there is a brief scene where he cradles the head of an associate who's been shot) but for the most part, Craig's Bond is as cold and ruthless as the villains he's trying to hunt down. While not very handsome, Craig is in extremely good shape and handles all the action sequences with gusto.

There are plenty of excellent action sequences in Quantum of Solace which will keep you entertained. These sequences run the gamut from car, boat and plane chases to a dazzlingly choreographed face off between Bond and the primary villain's henchmen at an opera house.

Olga Kurylenko as Camille is a more proactive 'Bond girl' than usual. She seeks to take revenge on General Medrano (Quantum's #2 villain) who killed her family members when she was a child. Bond 'rescues' her when she finds herself alone on boat with the General and his goons. Later she's angry with Bond for 'rescuing' her, upsetting her plans to kill Medrano on the boat (it's never made clear how Camille could kill Medrano without getting killed herself—and also how would she have been able to kill him as it did not appear she was carrying a weapon).

Dominic Greene is the primary villain played by Mathieu Amalric. He's a sleazy businessman masquerading as an environmental crusader. Bond discovers that instead of trying to aid the local populace, he's dammed off all their water causing a drought. At the end of the film, Bond captures Greene and leaves him in the desert with a can of (what looks like) draino (presumably which he can use to commit suicide). I was expecting something more dramatic such as Bond destroying the dam and having the water cascade into the drought stricken area, replenishing the water supply and killing Greene in the process.

Judi Dench is excellent as usual as "M" but I still miss the wonderful gadgets Bond uses to defeat his opponents. The signature 007 music comes on at the end but why not use it at the beginning too? In a nod to be relevant to today, the opening theme song unfortunately is greatly influenced by rap music. It's basically a tuneless song and detracts from the film's opening.

For now, the James Bond franchise appears to be successfully emulating the non-stop action stunts of the Jason Bourne series. But the producers should be forewarned: start giving Bond more of a personality or the Bond fan base will start clamoring for Daniel Craig's replacement.
2/10
Shockingly bad
mattrochman19 February 2011
A lot has been said about the editing. It really makes a giant mess of the action sequences and, as happened with the last two Bourne films directed by Paul Greengrass, one somehow ends off disorientated and lost rather than enthralled.

However, there are so many more flaws. The villain is not particularly interesting and his grand conspiracy is humdrum. Somehow the story seems to get lost. There is some shifting focuses before it grows boring, then it seems to be more shallow than the film would have you believe before and, once again, it gets lost again and somehow muddled.

Craig is not a very good Bond, we are still missing gadgets, Q, moneypenny.... and still unimpressed overall. Brosnan magnificently rose to the challenge and the producers there successfully continued the franchise with a good 'modern' twist. Since Craig took over, the chararcter has been reinvented as a bitter, emotionless assassin that lack flare and a sense of fun and cheekiness. The sooner they ditch making more of these types of bonds, the better.
1/10
Unwatchable
wilsr12 March 2014
I managed about ten minutes of this movie, and that was quite enough.

The editing makes it, for me, completely unwatchable. The cutting is more frenetic than any film I have ever seen before and after the first couple of minutes my brain had been battered into "please let me die" mode.

There really is nothing clever or innovative about such a pace: I suspect the editors were brought up on cut/cut/cut videos and imagine that this "technique" (being polite) makes a story exciting.

News for them: it doesn't in commercials, and it sure doesn't in a full length movie. Grow up and learn to make a story stand up for itself without this sort of activity.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Unrelenting, tight and icy
Simon_Says_Movies28 November 2008
If I may, I would like to begin this review with a kind of rant; a rant about the path this movie has taken since its overseas release, so bear with me. Who is to say what a 'James Bond' movie should entail? Obviously Ian Flemming, who scribed the source material, but the public's issues rarely involves and argument surrounding an unfaithful literary adaptation. Now if you have a gripe with this film on another level, such as acting, direction, whatever, I will happily respect your opinion. No, in the case people claim Quantum of Solace 'does not feel like a James Bond movie'; and I'm sorry but that's a load of bull. If James Bond is in it…then it's a James Bond movie. (Not to mention the abundance of Bond trademarks: the foreign beauty, the isolated enemy hideout, the product placement, the cars) Dropping the character into a 21st century environment does not deprave the suave spy of his persona, nor does it ruin the film as a whole. Leaving behind the sometimes excruciating campiness of films like Live and Let Die, is a wise decision; as is that to tone down, if not fully eliminate implausible gadgetry and corny one liners. Writer Paul Haggis is more then talented enough to make Bond compelling and debonair without the need to return to Connery era dialogue. Another superfluous gripe floating around is Bond's lack of restraint and turn into the realm of brutality after the death of his love Vesper in Casino Royale. Now, I will admit to a few moments where Bond's callousness became too predominant and took me out of the film, but with that being said the decision to tweak the character accordingly in response to the immediate events of this film is wise. He is not a faceless killer, he is angry, he is human. Also important to be cognitive of, is the fact that Bond only recently entered the spy game, and the burden of his sins and nightmares of his past have not yet crested. I foresee a troubled Bond in future installments, a la Jason Bourne's catharsis in Ultimatum. The last thing I will say is that Bond has always been a killer; he has a licensed to do so. Brosnan's Bond killed dozens more people then Craig ever has, and just because they are not faceless henchmen, and the acts are committed in a grittier fashion, is no reason to get in a stink.

Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace picks up the pieces immediately after the events of Casino Royale led him to a mysterious figure named Mr. White. Following a high octane car chase, as only Bond can boast, M. (Judi Dench) and Bond (Daniel Craig) try to piece together who the organization is behind Vesper's death and how they could have retained such anonymity. Bond is whisked worldwide as he follows leads and tips which eventually lead him to a man named Dominic Greene, who is in sinister negotiations with a Bolivian General named Mendrano (Joaquin Cosio). It is here that Bond, under very poor terms I might add, meets the beautiful Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who too is looking for revenge. Under their burning desires they team, to find the answers they have been longing for. Quantum of Solace acts as a bridge movie, as like The Two towers did for Lord of the Rings; the plot is not advanced anywhere far, but builds tension and compounds wonder. As such, Solace is not as good a film as Casino Royale, nor does it have to be. It is however sleeker, glossier and more visceral.

Craig again puts forth a stellar acting effort and solidifies his stand as one of the best ever Bond's, and is formidably complimented by the dames in his life, such as Dame Judy Dench who gets solid screen time as M. and makes the most of it to be certain. Kurylenko has a unique chemistry with Craig, not a burring lust or passion, but the two share a bond, (no pun intended) derived from their mutual quest for vengeance. Dominic Green, played by Mathieu Amalric is creepy and sinister; not in a foreword way but similar to that of Le Chiffre; intelligent, not physically intimidating (Although he puts up an impressive fight during an exquisitely fiery pivotal scene) Some may be bothered by the quick camera cuts, but I have never been one to be bothered, or even notice these techniques, which is perhaps which is why I enjoyed the Bourne's, Cloverfield and other's, so thoroughly.

The action is bold is unrelenting, the slim running time is comprised mostly of high energy sequences, and serves as an apt compliment to the slow burn of Casino Royale. While Craig serves his revenge icy cold, he gets into significant heat; churning out some close calls and is almost always boasting a fresh set of bruises and gashes. The biggest determent to this picture is the vastly inadequate opening song and sequence, featuring Alicia Keys and Jack White and is a mediocre pop song on its own, and a flat out bad Bond song in context. Despite that hiccup and a long-coming gun barrel sequence Bond is back. I for one am excited to see where the actions of Bond, in this film, will take him as he continues his quest, as Quantum of Solace shows shaking up an old formula can make for a stirring return.

View all my reviews at Simon Says Movie Reviews: www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
3/10
Quantum of Solace - Or How To Make A Complete Mess Out of Something Basically Very Simple
basrutten5 April 2009
After the Bond franchise was successfully reinvented with the very watchable Casino Royale, it immediately kills itself off again in with the eminently UNwatchable Quantum of Solace, aka how to make a complete mess out of something basically very simple Let me be clear: I like most of the old Bond Stuff...sure it was cheesy and goofy, but it was good fun. Over time though, it got progressively worse with the also unwatchable Die Another Day as the low point. Then Casino Royale came along and although it was a lot more serious than previous outings, it still had style and class, and even had character development and a story.

Now, Quantum of Solace comes along, and not only does it throw out everything that made the old Bond movies fun (style, humor) it also throws out everything that made CR fun. What we are left with is a third rate Jason Bourne that seems to be played on double speed.

At the basis, the ingredients for a good Bond movie are here; the story is serviceable, the exotic locations and girls are there, and there are some essentially excellent action sequences.

Whatever potential there is, however, is totally spoiled by the fact that the entire movie from start to finish is incredibly rushed. The action sequences are edited in such a haphazard and frantic way that it's impossible to determine what on earth is going on.

The plot is rushed in a similar way; we jump from one location to the next with no explanation whatsoever, characters pop out of nowhere and are killed off before we even learn their names, and in general everything feels very random. If you try a bit you can still distill a decent story out of this mess, but frankly half of it seems to have gone missing on the editing room floor, along with basically all of the character development.

In the end this is simple a horrible movie to watch. It could have been decent but the horrible editing and incredibly poor storytelling drag it down to the "unwatchable mess" level.

Final note: I am undecided about whether this is the worse Bond yet, I think Die Another Day was a little bit worse. But at least this one takes over from that movie for having the worst title song..something I found almost impossible
7/10
It's a sequel - and dark as a consequence
seamanm1 November 2008
Excellent movie, I won't add spoilers, but be aware, it's a sequel to Casino Royale and is necessarily darker in tone. Bond has shut down emotionally as a consequence of Vesper's death and is driven to investigate and, to some extent, avenge her death.

Daniel Craig further extends his takeover of the role, he exudes a sense of sadness with a ruthless drive to move forward with his mission. Mention should be made of Judi Dench - she delivers another excellent performance as M.

Would heartily recommend watching Casino Royale on DVD beforehand if you own it, specifically to prepare and remind yourself of the odd plot point as they certainly will be relevant here.

Bond fans rest assured it's fantastic entertainment. It has to be agreed that it is lacking in old-school quips and innuendo, but in my opinion it is entirely in keeping with Bond's situation in this movie. There are some beautiful locations though, especially in Italy and the Aston looks great, for a little while!

As Bond himself says, "you don't have to worry about me". I'm not worried about the franchise and the third part of this trilogy will be worth looking forward to.
4/10
Disappointing Bond film
TheLittleSongbird8 August 2010
I sort of enjoyed Casino Royale, but I didn't love or revere it. Now this review is coming from someone who enjoys the James Bond films, GoldenEye, Goldfinger, Dr No and From Russia With Love for examples are wonderful, but I just didn't enjoy Quantum of Solace very much. It isn't the worst film ever or anything and I don't think it is the worst Bond either, but it doesn't feel like a Bond film.

Quantum of Solace does have its good points though. The scenery is very striking, same with the cinematography, and the special effects and gadgetry are very nice touches too. Same with the beginning, which was very impressive indeed. And there is some decent acting, Daniel Craig I feel has more presence here and Judi Dench is solid as always.

However, there are several things wrong as well. The main problem was the plot, it was incredibly convoluted and made no sense. The dialogue isn't great at all, at best it was okay at worst it was non-existent, with little humour or sophistication and some of it is spoken very low so you can't hear it. Then there is the pacing, it is in general too slow, but I also thought the ending was rather rushed. Also the music was disappointing here, I love the music in these Bond films, my favourite Bond song is From Russia with Love, but the main theme is somewhat messy and bland and the incidental music isn't as clever or as innovative here. And I thought the direction was not great at all, some of it was dreadful even especially in some of the action sequences which feel chopped and rushed, while the villain was very insipid. While I liked some the action particularly the beginning like I said, but some of it lacked the thrilling spectacle I was kind of expecting.

Overall, has its high points but it should have been better. 4/10 Bethany Cox
1/10
so, mister Bond, are you ready to talk?
mrdonleone5 April 2009
the only reason I bought the DVD, is that I'm an obsessive Bond fan. I want to have every James Bond movie in my possession. the film itself, it's so boring. I tried to watch it again yesterday, but I turned it off. it' so stupid! I don't understand the director. how is it possible they have made such crap? I don't like it. In fact, it's a sequel to Casino Royale. but Casino Royale was also a stupid Bond movie. why did the elements disappear, those things of which you know you're watching a Bond movie? Craig walks through both pictures as if he's on LSD. why? Quantum of Solace is the worst sequel ever made. the story is so without any storyline, I guess the director must have been thinking the movie would only be shown to retards. the villains are so unBondlike, with everything you see in a Van Damme picture (thus no personalities, only violence). I would like to say: don't watch this film. And what's the meaning of the title?
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Come to terms
kosmasp19 April 2009
After the "Bond begins" movie with Daniel Craig (also known as Casino Royal), I came to terms into where Bond was moving to. And watching Jason Bon... ah sorry I mean James Bourne of course. No, but seriously, after many years, where Bond was the one that got copied, Bond now tries to stay in touch with the times and went "air-bo(u)rne" (pun intended).

You can hold it against this movie, as well as the fact, that Bond never get's to say his name on-screen ("Bond. James Bond"), but does that really matter? For some it does, but I think if you survived the Casino Royale deconstruction of Bond, than you should be prepared, what to expect here.

I liked the raw-ness of Bond and I also liked the ending, which is so Anti-Bond, that it has an original flavour and adds to the whole thing. Of course there isn't much of a plot here ... it's a continuation to the Casino Royale story, or better it sort of concludes that. I did like the movie, because I got my head around one thing ... to rephrase a quote: "Bond is dead, long live the (new) Bond!" I'm not that excited about the whole thing yet, but maybe after the third one, I will be! And a movie that get's that much attention and get's discussed and even taken apart by some, has to have something going for it.
6/10
Almost unwatchable...
nikolaospap-9404922 November 2020
Decent story, good pacing but those action scenes sure make you dizzy with all the cuts going on.
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worst of the series? Sure looks like it
adamscastlevania228 August 2014
(37%) A Bond film without James Bond. Sure Daniel Craig is playing a character called 007, but the writers were too worried about stepping on any decades old clichés so they stripped the character bare leaving nothing besides a generic action hero in an expensive suit. It starts with the worst car chase in Bond history, it's a real mess, in-fact all the action is a bit of a stinker as it all feels so rushed. Why it is so choppy? Why can't the camera keep still? Is it supposed to be more exciting? And as everything is filmed the same exact way it all just morphs together, the car chase, the boat chase, the fights, nothing is memorable because it all feels like it is sprinting down the clock because it has nothing to say. Overall this is a flat, hugely forgettable time waster, and a true contender for the worst Bond flick ever because it breaks the mortal sin of not being fun in the slightest to watch.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Weakest and most boring movie in Agent 007 series after restart
eva3si0n28 April 2020
Quantum of Solace is the weakest and most boring film in a series of films since its restart in 2006. There is no well-prescribed antagonist here, and the hero Mathieu Amalric does not pull on it in any way. And the plot does not shine originality, the single thing that is remembered in the film, it is the companion of agent Olga Kurylenko.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
James Bored ? Very disappointed.
mixta1103 November 2008
I loved Casino Royal, I thought and still thing Craig is a great Bond. BUT I was very disappointed with this film. It was lacking many things, and the action scenes seemed to be painting by numbers, they seemed to only happen at intervals to stop us nodding off. Also a very anti-climactic ending too.

The villain was dull and not in the least bit menacing, Craig seemed tired of the role, which is a shame because the first film was brilliant.

I think part of its problems, is that it feels like a direct sequel which of course it is, but in that, it doesn't seem to have its own identity as an individual Bond movie.

Also, it felt like nothing really happened in the film. I'm not sure if it was the same director as that did casino royal or someone else but it was not well conceived. Maybe it was the lack of storyline? It was too confusing to tell.

Not what i was expecting for a follow up to Royale, I was hoping he would become a little bit more Bond like. Like The Dark Knight is a more defined Batman to Batman Begins yet not totally leaving room for Batman 3.

I don't thing a new gadget would have made this film any better, but it would have at least been cool to introduce maybe Q or the division he works for.

Unlike Casino Royale, this film felt hollow, and too unlike a Bond film. It does not make me want to see it again on DVD.

I'm sure it will make a ton of cash and maybe even win an award, but to me the blockbuster figures will be from curiosity rather than the repeat viewings that The Dark Knight had.
the mindless action is not enough
sammyb30 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
67 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was not fond of either TWINE, DAD or Casino Royale so I went to see QOS with some trepidation.

I had some slight hope that we might get something with a Fleming feel as Craig apparently " became" Bond at the end of CR. No such luck, QOS is a generic action movie with nothing memorable about it.

There is a great deal of action but its all somewhat derivative of Bourne.I didn't feel there was any originality in the action or the script.

There is surprising little romance either, although for those females that find Craig deeply unattractive ( like me) that is perhaps not so surprising.

Olga Kurenyo is competent but not very distinctive and Gemma Arterton steals the movie..unfortunately she isn't around for long.

Dame Judi Dench is very good. Title song is excruciating and the score is mixed..at times good at others too high tech and tinny.

Villain is pretty weak and scarcely a formidable enough opponent for 007.

not impressed
2/10
Pretty bad
ronfernandezsf29 April 2020
What a shame the Bond films have become more and more kinetic and harder to understand. The fast past editing is terrible. Too much like the other movies in in era of filmmaking. The music and themes of the last few Bonds are pathetic. What happened to lovely tunes and lyrics like the first 7 or 8 Bonds? Whats that old saying? "If it's not broken, don't fix it. For shame. I know the producers want to "get with it" but for the Bond films it doesn't work. PLEASE go back to the older Bond films. Sure do miss Mr. Connery and Moore.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
So much undercover that even "he" seems unrecognisable.
Cinema_Fan4 November 2008
German born Marc Forster (The Kite Runner, 2007) has the deft task of giving our most prestigious secret agent his next assignment. He has assembled a workforce that has worked hard to achieve a wonderful and exiting visual that is Quantum of Solace; fast edits; close-up action from start to finish, all quick, all skilfully put together this constitutes competent film-making indeed.

We expect the usual, that is the new modern Bond, high octane spy adventure thriller here and we have it, with the story coming from Ian Flemings short story, in title only, this, it seems really is the end of the line of the Fleming family-tree. Sadly, this shows too, as the film progresses, we see what can also seem just an average-come-lately action film. You see, Bond is individual, Bond is maverick, Bond is trademarked. Quantum of Solace stands out on its own, or does it? When we have a new Bond, we should at least have old style, old witticism, old charms and more importantly old signature tunes.

There are moments that we have to remind ourselves that we are watching a James Bond film. The new has pushed out, and advanced along the way, the old, we often see that at the sacrifice of old tunes, pleasant reminders and musical signature motto's, that at times, even the James Bond franchise seems to be so much undercover that even "he" seems unrecognisable.

What is particularly interesting is the connection between Bond and his superior, M, now the ultimate Bond girl. Given his ruthlessness and her pleasant sternness set against each other and the mixture of their works' combined makes a good team and with this comes humour and a job well done. The bad-guys are the same old bad guys and the Bond girls are just as gorgeous as ever.

Unfortunately, as the pace quickens the narrative slows and falls a little flat, not the most exciting plot. Madmen wanting world domination it isn't, but for what it is, in their own unique way, even Harry Palmer, Alec Leamas, Austin Powers and dare I say it Jason Bourne could have pulled this one off. So much is the unfamiliarity and development of this new creation, we could be watching anyone here.

"Bond. James Bond". Did he say that in the film too? Another missing link perhaps? Are the new creators' wanting to distance the old and bury the hatchet? The time has finally arrived that a Bond film has not been written by its creator. It is all too painfully obvious that this Bond just may be batting for the other side by not showing his true colours and thus blending in with his counter-parts. But hey, even with Bond heading in this new uncharted territory it brings little solace in thinking that bygones be best forgot.
5/10
Quantum Of Solace
fig000031 November 2008
This is my first review in IMDb (my first port-of-call for movie opinions) and unfortunately it's simply a reaction to what has been, this morning, a disappointing experience.

Unlike Casino Royale, which was as direct as a bullet from a gun, QoS spends a sizeable chunk of it's running time meandering aimlessly.

Firstly though, the intro car chase is in the style of an agitated, edit-obsessed director which means the entire scene is viewed in short random bursts from a multitude of angles - Fine, if that's your bag.

What follows is a series of action set pieces which are at turns exciting, manic and messy, but after which the film becomes flat and a little direction-less. That's not to say that there is little in the way of bullets and babes but the simple facts are that the set pieces are really not very exciting, and worse still the characters are pretty bland, in comparison to those in Casino Royale.

You'll struggle to think of a main bond villain that is less interesting than Dominic Greene, and agent Fields is utterly pointless in every aspect other than brief eye-candy.

As is mentioned in other reviews it is Judy Dench and Daniel Craig that keep this movie from leaving the tracks entirely but it doesn't bode well for future outings if this is to be the new template.

In short Casino Royale rejuvenated the franchise but Quantum Of Solace has gone some way to spoiling it's success.

The theme song isn't too good either, and just like the film it gets a tad messy at times. Get Chris Cornell back for the next one.
5/10
Pile of Rubbish
C22Man31 July 2015
Bond Review.

Title: Sounds very odd, but kind of makes sense given the story.

Pre-Titles: Bond is involved in a high-speed chase as he travels to Siena with Mr. White in his boot and just manages to escape his pursuers. This opening could have been brilliant, but it is filmed horribly and edited to within an inch of its life. Every cut lasts half a second, making impossible to tell what's actually going on and sucking any enjoyment out of what should be an exciting opening.

Theme Song: The first Bond duet by Jack White and Alicia Keys is one to forget. The melody and composition are actually pretty good, but the singing and lyrics are woeful. White is totally out of place and Keys honestly sounds like a cat being strangled, put them together and its ear torture.

Plot: Bond tracks an organisation named Quantum and hunts them down in a state of revenge. He quickly discovers that its leader, developer Dominic Greene, plans to drain the Bolivian water supply. The plot had the potential to be very exciting, but it is told in such a confusing and mundane way that you lose interest very fast. Part of it feels like a Bond revenge mission and the other part feels like an old-school world domination plot, and these two styles don't mix whatsoever. The whole story itself feels rushed and the characters are given no convincing development.

James Bond: Daniel Craig is the best thing here, yet he can't keep the film afloat. He nails the brooding edge of the character once more and adds even more physicality to the role, while being compelling with his expressions. However there's no balance, as he is given poor dialogue and doesn't get a chance to show his charming side, making him come off as a little too gloomy.

Bond Girls: Both Bond girls are simply boring. Olga Kurylenko is convincing as the emotionally damaged Camille but she gets nothing interesting to do, looks constantly angry and has no chemistry with Craig. Gemma Arterton at least has some fun as agent Fields, but she gets too little screen time to make an impact and just feels like a throwaway character.

Villains: Words don't do justice to how dull a villain Dominic Greene. Making a shadier businessman type of villain isn't a bad idea, but he has no personality and is not remotely convincing as a threat in any way. He doesn't say anything memorable, he doesn't do anything worth remembering, he looks like a depressed diplomat and most of the time he stands around looking bored. Joaquin Cosio at least looks the part as Greene's supplier General Medrano and he is intimidating, but the character is only glossed over and his role seems shoehorned in.

Support: Judi Dench is as solid as ever in an expanded role as M, but she is in the field way too much. Giancarlo Giannini makes a welcome return as Mathis and is amusing, but doesn't get much to do. Jeffrey Wright's is completely wasted as Leiter, all he does is drink and look indifferent.

Action: The action is intense, but there's way too much of it and it's filmed dreadfully. We get a chase along rooftops, boat chases, helicopter chases and countless shots of Bond walloping people with all of it done in shaky cam which means you can't really tell what is happening. As a result you simply don't care what is going on. The climax is a good set-up at a desert hotel, but Bond's fight with Greene is pathetic and it quickly becomes explosions galore.

Score: David Arnold provides another decent score. He offers a fitting backdrop to the rough approach of the film in many scenes and his slower tracks are appropriately moody. However it is a bit lacklustre compared to his previous efforts.

Production Values: Foster deserves most of the blame here for his terrible directing. As said the action sequences are a mess, while the dialogue heavy scenes are shot blandly and the 'important' scenes don't feel remotely important. The editing is the other issue as the film looks like it was edited by a maniac. It is all just lightning quick cuts, close-ups of people looking really irritated and the incredibly annoying shaky cam tormenting our senses. The pace is all off as well and it feels like one long action scene, it's like the film cannot slow down and that results in nothing being given room to breathe or develop. The writing is simply terrible. Was Bond's mission engaging? No. Was the villain's scheme interesting? No. Where the characters well written? No. As a result it is so hard to care about anything on screen. The locations are all good, but there is way too much globe hoping going on and if it wasn't for the awkward cards telling you then I wouldn't have a clue where Bond was.

Conclusion: If Casino Royale was an Aston Martin, then Quantum of Solace is like taking that Aston Martin and driving it into a brick wall. Everything that Casino Royale had done so well has been completely done away with for no reason at all. The characters are all boring and only capable of being angry, the action is one massive mess, the plot is ridiculous given this more grounded portrayal and Bond has gone from feeling like a real person to a crazed wrecking machine. I love the dark and intense Bond, but there has to either be some levity or a really intriguing premise because otherwise it just becomes a chore to get through otherwise and that is exactly what Quantum of Solace is.
1/10
A good Way To Get a Headache
ccthemovieman-12 April 2009
I've seen every James Bond movie ever made and this is first time I've quit watching one before it was finished. Who wouldn't get a headache watching this? By the way, that's two crappy Daniel Craig-as-James Bond movies in a row.

Almost nonstop action with a hand-held camera, much of the time set so close to the action that there is no way my human eye, nor anyone else's, can focus enough to see exactly what's going on. I counted six action scenes in the first 35 minutes and by then, my head hurt. There is no way the brain is fast enough to register all of these microsecond sound bites. It takes the fun out of these wild action scenes. You can't follow half the things that happen.

Add to the mix a James Bond with no humor and no gadgets, which were essential to the popularity of the Bond movies over the years, and the fun is gone. Also, almost all the characters in here are unlikable, including the "good guys like Bond's boss "M" (Judi Dench), who can't utter a sentence without profanity, and another foul-mouthed female "heroine" all make this practically an unwatchable movie.

They've re-invented James Bond of the movie with Craig and it's not fun anymore. Even if it was, who can watch with camera-work like this?
5/10
Tea, Milk in First
JamesHitchcock18 November 2008
The problems start with the worst ever title of any Bond film. There was an Ian Fleming short story called "Quantum of Solace", but it bears no relation to this film. The film-makers probably just borrowed its title to avoid the effort of thinking up an original one. In a desperate attempt to forge some connection between the title and the film itself, the scriptwriters have bestowed the name "Quantum" on a SPECTRE-type criminal organisation who, it belatedly transpires, were also behind the events narrated in "Casino Royale".

SPECTRE, of course, was headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, a role memorably interpreted by the likes of Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas and Charles Gray. Quantum, by contrast, is headed by a man who goes by the prosaically Anglo-Saxon name of Dominic Greene. (As he is played by the French actor Mathieu Amalric, they could at least have made him the more exotic-sounding Dominique Le Vert). Previous Bond villains had such grandiose ambitions as achieving world domination, starting World War III or wiping out most of the human race and then using the survivors to build a new civilisation. Greene's rather less ambitious plan is to fund a military coup in Bolivia in exchange for concessions from the new government which will allow Quantum to corner that country's water market. I won't try to explain the plot in any more detail, except to say that it is very complicated and often difficult to follow.

"Quantum of Solace" is unusual among Bond films in that it was deliberately made as a sequel to "Casino Royale"; in the past there has been little continuity between one Bond film and another, with each being made as a self-contained adventure. (Some of the films, however, such as "The Spy who Loved Me", did make reference to Bond's late wife Tracy, who was killed at the end of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"). In "Quantum of Solace" Bond's main motivation is grief at the death of his love Vesper Lynd, and desire for revenge.

Daniel Craig is, as he showed in "Casino Royale" and non-Bond films such as "Sylvia", a talented actor, and he again plays his part well here, but he receives little support except from the reliable Judi Dench as his boss "M", the one remaining link with the Brosnan era. (At 74, however, Dame Judi is getting a bit too old for the role; time for a change in the next episode?) Olga Kurylenko as the heroine Camille is adequate, but not much more. She is not one of the really memorable Bond girls, unlike, say Michelle Yeoh, Sophie Marceau or Halle Berry (to take three relatively recent examples). There is a good contribution from Gemma Arterton as a secondary heroine, but Amalric must be the most nondescript and least memorable Bond villain of all time.

Arterton's character does at least provide some sort of continuity with the rest of the series, both in her eccentric name (Strawberry Fields) and in the manner of her death, which recalls what happened to Shirley Eaton in "Goldfinger". In many other respects, however, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to break with the traditions of the Bond franchise. This is the first Bond film where there is no romance between Bond and the heroine; he is clearly too shaken up over Vesper to have eyes for either Camille or Strawberry. He no longer introduces himself as "Bond, James Bond", and no longer cares whether his Martinis are shaken or stirred. (In the next film he will probably give up drinking cocktails altogether; he will wander up to the bar and ask for a "tea, milk in first"). The famous James Bond theme has been relegated to the end of the film.

Some of these developments also featured in "Casino Royale", but "Quantum of Solace" goes further in its break with tradition. Humour is kept to a minimum, and the film no longer has the look of a Bond movie. Although our hero visits several foreign locations, such as Siena, Haiti, Austria and Bolivia, the film lacks the sort of glamorous exoticism we have come to associate with Bond. It has much more the feel of a "tough guy" action-adventure film such as "The Transporter" or the Jason Bourne franchise. (As with "Casino Royale", the film was not always shot in the countries in which it is ostensibly set; Panama stood in for Haiti and Chile for Bolivia). There is perhaps also an attempt at political satire; Greene is the head of a supposed environmental foundation called Green Planet, which is really a front for Quantum's criminal activities. The message is perhaps that those who profess concern for the environment are not always sincere.

I greatly admired Marc Forster's previous film "The Kite Runner", a moving human drama which was one of the best films of 2007. It was, however, about as different from a Bond film as one could imagine, and I did not feel that Forster was the best choice of director for "Quantum of Solace". As always with Bond, there are plenty of car chases and other action sequences, but these were not the best thing about the film. Forster's style of directing in these sequences was too hectic for my tastes, relying heavily on shaky hand-held cameras and excessively rapid cutting from one shot to the next.

I hate to say it, but the Bond franchise is in trouble again, only two years after it appeared to have been saved by "Casino Royale", the best Bond film since the Connery era. With its confusing plot and weak characterisation, Craig cannot save "Quantum of Solace" from being the weakest since "Licence to Kill". One can cheer Bond on as he fights to save the world; it is much more difficult to get excited about his fighting to save the principle of free competition in the Bolivian water supply industry. 5/10
5/10
Home, James...
Lejink8 April 2011
As cold and soulless as a computer game, this is Bond still struggling to keep up with Jason Bourne. So we get a bazillion stunts and SFX, ditto body count and changes of location, likewise plot twists. It all goes by in a whirr, exciting for the merest second, but gone the next, leaving no real feeling of enjoyment or even exhilaration.

Daniel Craig probably uses less words of dialogue than any previous Bond and demonstrates little finesse. Yes, he's a superbly sculpted killing machine, but somewhere along the way, the writers and director forgot to give him a personality, humour or even wit which effectively turns him into a Terminator-type, grunting like Arnie and therefore impossible to like or admire. That may have been the intention, given that the basic story here is one (or rather, two) of revenge, so much so that green Oligarch Greene's machinations in South America seem like a sub-plot.

Some of the stunts are stunning, but with others you can see the C-Gen joins. With only one genuinely breath-taking moment in it, the "Goldfinger"-update death of Agent Fields, the rest is just relentless, senses-numbing "action". No one has to act much plus I think Judi Dench's M role is getting built up far too much in latter-day Bonds. This brutal, ice-hearted Bond I see here isn't one I readily recognise or particularly enjoy.

Two films into the Bond re-boot and already I suspect a cross-roads ahead...
1/10
Still holding its place as one of the great disaster movies of all time
hoytyhoyty28 September 2014
I can't believe I completely forgot to bucket this turkey in amongst all the reviews I've written.

The quick summary: A complete piece of sh*t with no redeeming features, none.

Do not see this film. Repeat, do not see this film.

It is garbage, it is excrement, it is a waste of time.

It is not only a bad Bond film, it is an extremely bad movie just in absolute terms.

OK, now, if you want a more complex critique, read on...

QoS was a particularly unpleasant cinematic experience.

And in fact, when I did see it with my then girlfriend, there was an ominous omen - a bunch of kids (what were they doing in a Bond viewing?) up the back decided to remind me of why I moved out of the suburbs.

The only entertainment I received that day was my GF screaming abuse at the kids' mother when she turned up to collect them.

Then again, maybe the kids were right...

This isn't a film, per-se. It's just a random collection of roughly 'Bond'y bits, stuck together: un-bonded Bond. It's patently obvious the writer was an idiot, the director was having a massive drug come-down or marriage break-up, and the producers... I suppose they must have been absent, and then just had to put a brave face on it when they saw the final bucket of vomit.

It's just one big cinematic Sin. They should have burned it and cut their losses.

It's sub-sins are:

* being a crap Bond film - like the Timothy Daltons or Pierce Brosnans, when after Casino Royale we thought we'd at last left all the tedium behind

* forcing Daniel Craig to appear in a crap Bond film, just after he established himself as Connery's only equal

* forcing an audience to sit through a crap Bond film, after being led to expect more of the brilliance of Casino Royale

* forcing Ian Flemming's ghost to be anally-raped at gunpoint, similarly to how the Indiana Jones character and the audience were anally raped at gunpoint by Spielberg and Lucas

* having no plot, whatsoever - no matter how hard you try to piece together what's happening, you fail. That's because there isn't anything happening, it's just a random collection of roughly 'Bond'y bits, stuck together

* having very, very silly scenes, for no reason - ropes and clocks and car chases all spring, horribly, to mind

* having irritating villains - who in turn have irritating henchmen with silly haircuts

* being a random collection of roughly 'Bond'y bits, stuck together, yet still managing to feel longer than the age of the universe

* having a crap, boring theme song

I imagine there were some severe meetings after this hit the cinemas and bounced back with a loud splat on the producers' doorstep.

The only Bond film ever to make a loss, I believe, in some distribution chains?

Wow, I can't believe the power-anger that even thinking about this abomination conjures up! It's a rush!

Don't see it! It's a piece of sh*t!

-

--

---
1/10
When did ADD become the standard for filming?
nitestar951 June 2011
I'd put off seeing this one simply because everyone was telling me things that I didn't want to believe. A Bond film that stinks?? Can't be. But then I watched it. Seldom does any camera get to film an entire scene if at all; by reducing each video segment to only a few seconds at most, the continuity simply gets lost. In this movie's case, it hides the fact that it's mostly all just a bunch of clips strung together; this is especially noticed in the fight scenes, which when pieced together with one or two second clips make it seem like an edited creation rather than a fight. I guess that's what happens when you have actors that are aging and cannot be engaged in such an altercation for more than a couple of seconds at a time. So all we have is pieced together action. Great if that's what you like. I'd really rather have a better storyline. This one was just painful to watch.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What the hell is going on?
simon381827 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've bought this on DVD and I'm glad I have. The only reason I'm glad is that I can watch it again and again and see if I can find the plot anywhere. Watched it twice so far and still can't work out whats going on. The credits rolled and I thought: "Is that it?" 97 minutes were on the clock of the DVD Player.

This is a continuation of Casino Royale and I'm not sure how to describe the film. It starts in Italy, goes to Haiti and then Bolivia. Some bloke is after oil or water? I'm still confused. If you like action without dialogue, you got it. I'm sure the total script wouldn't cover two sides of A4 paper.

The title song, I'm sorry to say, has to be one of the worst and has no relation to the film or a mood connection either.

This isn't the best and not the worst. Please lets have something better next time, keep it to the 2 hour mark and please lets have a plot and dialogue.
1/10
Unwatchable garbage
Unicorn-928 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
42 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie starts with an 'action' sequence where Bond is being chased through the mountains in some fancy car... or maybe he's chasing someone through the mountains... or maybe he's driving down to Brighton for an afternoon at the beach and some other people are chasing each other through the mountains... or... who knows? They obviously spent a ton of cash on this sequence but then they cut it together in three-frame chunks so the audience have no idea what the heck is going on.

After this there's a brief discussion which seems to assume that the viewer just watched Casino Royale and can therefore remember exactly what happened in that movie (perhaps the fact that I can barely remember anything about it whereas I remember at least the rough plots of pretty much every other Bond movie I've seen should have been warning enough to me).

Then Bond chases someone around town... or maybe someone chases him... or maybe Bond goes for a nice cup of tea as he watches a horse race while two other guys chase each other around town; again it's impossible to tell because of the appalling editing.

Then he flies to... well, I don't know -- or really care -- because at this point we turned off the DVD.

Never once in my life have I failed to watch a Bond movie to the end, until now... and, let's face it, there have been plenty of stinkers. But this is just garbage, and if it's the future of the Bond franchise, it's rushing towards a well-deserved death; the concept of a more realistic Bond wasn't a bad one, but not when you give $100,000,000 to a couple of film school students (OK, maybe the editor and director do have some track record -- I don't even care enough to look them up on IMDb -- but it certainly looks like the kind of movie that bad film school students dream about making).

Seriously, avoid this movie at all costs; it's the worst 'action movie' I've seen in years.
5/10
A big step backwards
hall89519 April 2011
We begin with a rather absurd car chase. This is followed almost immediately by a rather absurd chase on foot. Very soon after that we get an absurd boat chase. And just in case you're clamoring for yet another absurd chase sequence they toss in an airplane chase later on. Say, shouldn't there be a story in here somewhere?

After being reborn to very good effect in Casino Royale there is no way around it, the Bond franchise has taken a huge step backwards with Quantum of Solace. Casino Royale gave us a more grounded, serious, believable Bond. It also gave us a story with some heart, Bond actually being allowed to love and to ultimately have his heart broken. There was some actual emotion involved. Even though the story in Quantum of Solace picks up seemingly minutes from where Casino Royale left off all the emotion has disappeared. Instead of taking the time to further develop the character of Bond they turn him into just another action hero. Anything which has, over all the myriad Bond films, made the character unique has been stripped away. Now he's just another guy jumping off rooftops, surviving unsurvivable chases and fleeing exploding buildings. This is a Bond film which just doesn't feel like a Bond film. Which might be forgivable if there was at least a compelling story to follow. There isn't.

With all of the largely worthless, manically edited action sequences there hardly is any room for a story at all. It takes a painfully long time for the movie to reveal what it actually is about. And when it does it is a massive letdown. When the villain's big scheme is finally revealed the only sensible reaction is "That's all there is?" Really, we sat through all the headache-inducing jump-cutting nonsense for that? The big villain himself is a total dud. He goes by the name of Dominic Greene and he's just as boring and nondescript as the name suggests. This has to be the most lifeless Bond villain ever. Mathieu Amalric plays the part and it's hard to blame him for the character's failings. There's really nothing for him to work with. Where have all the grand Bond villains with their loony, dastardly plots gone? At least you can always count on a Bond girl to spice things up right? Nope. Olga Kurylenko plays the part of Camille and again a bland name suits a bland character. Camille's pretty much a complete bore and the chemistry between Kurylenko and Daniel Craig is essentially nonexistent. Playing a secondary Bond girl Gemma Arterton makes a bit better impression but she doesn't have enough screen time to really impact the proceedings in any significant way.

Really the only good thing you can say about this movie is that Craig does make a good Bond. He proved that in the first movie. Unfortunately here he is let down by a story which is often hard to follow and which in the end reveals it really wasn't worth following anyway. Casino Royale had some real heart to it, this movie has none. The story is so bad you get the sense director Marc Forster is trying to distract you with his largely incomprehensible editing. If nothing is on the screen for more than two seconds before the next quick cut can we really complain about what we've seen? This movie never gives you time to comprehend what you've seen which come to think of it might actually be a good thing. If you think about this story you're only going to be disappointed. Lame story, lame villain, lame Bond girl and a James Bond who's more lame action hero than the James Bond we've come to know and love. By the time the movie in tosses in a desperate Goldfinger homage/ripoff it comes off as a rather pathetic attempt to remind you that this actually is a James Bond movie. After Casino Royale allowed the Bond franchise to take a big leap forward Quantum of Solace is a huge step back.
2/10
Fails on Every Level
superal196626 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*Contains Spoilers*

The plot wasn't a confusing one but I really didn't care about it that and lost so much interest in Quantum of Solace that at times I wasn't too sure what was going on. Despite being widely acclaimed, the same happened for me with Casino Royale. It got to the point where in some cases I did know who characters were, and when I did, I neither liked or disliked them.

I tried to like Daniel Craig, I really tried, but he is an awful James Bond. Critically he has been well received as Bond but every car chase, ever fight, ever action scene I found myself wanting Craig to end up being the one thrown off a building.

He doesn't have any the charm or charisma that James Bond should have and everything about him is far too serious; the scene in the hotel with Fields pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with Craig's Bond. Fields turns up to arrest Bond if he goes rogue but ends up in bed with him, this is nothing out of the ordinary except it just happens; there is no charm from Bond, no cringe worthy lines, no character interaction. It just happens.

Bond going rogue is nothing new but throughout the entire film he actually felt like the bad guy and I actually ended up liking Greene far more. James Bond shooting and killing two perfectly innocent Bolivian policemen is not the James Bond we have come to love over the years, rogue or not, it's not an excuse. James Bond is actually the most unlikeable characters in this film.

Although I think there was meant to be, there is no Bond girl in Quantum of Solace. Olga Kurylenko played the part well but like everybody else in this film, it wouldn't have made any difference if she wasn't in it.

Gone are the totally over the top action scenes which have been replaced with far fetched chases and gun fights that are trying too hard to come across as realistic. Gone is any humour, gone is everything that I loved about James Bond.

I think this is the core problem with Craig and the past two Bond films, and perhaps it's not Craig's fault, but Bond is trying to become realistic. It fails on every level.

There are so many things wrong with Quantum of Solace, most not Craig's fault but it isn't helped by my dislike for him as James Bond.

I'll watch pretty much any film through to the end if I've started watching it, and Quantum of Solace was no different but for a good part of it I just wanted it to end. From the awful song at the introduction to the ending credits I don't think I enjoyed it at any point and I wanted the good part of a couple of hours back.
One of the weakest entries in the franchise
DVD_Connoisseur8 November 2008
Having sat through this movie twice now, I'm beginning to feel like I must be a glutton for punishment. "Quantum of Solace" is a definite step backwards for the series, lacking many of the essential Bond ingredients. Playing like another installment in the Bourne series, I feel that Broccoli and Wilson have lost sight of what makes a 007 installment special. (Producer Wilson can't help himself appearing briefly in every film. As if he hasn't done enough to damage the series, we keep having to see his gurning face more and more on the big screen.)

A series of set-pieces, including an air-plane scene that has been on ice for over a decade, are linked tenuously by the thinnest of plots. Art-house director Marc Forster is ill matched for the project and the resulting mess is painful viewing.

Daniel Craig is a fine actor and a satisfying Bond but he's let down here by the meandering script and the inappropriate direction. I just hope that subsequent tales revert back to traditional Bond elements and adopt a more upbeat mood, whilst avoiding the silliness of the Moore-era.

6 out of 10.
6/10
A weaker than average Bond Film
Tweekums25 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had put off watching this for a while as I'd heard negative things about it and after the excellent "Casino Royale" I didn't want to see Bond in a poor film. When I had an opportunity to borrow a copy of the film I decided I'd put off viewing it long enough. At first I wasn't too impressed, the car chase opening was good enough but nothing we hadn't seen before and the title song was a contender for the worst opening song to date.

Set just after the end of "Casino Royale" Bond is seeking revenge for death of Vesper, he has captured Mr White and is about to interrogate him. Before he can get started Mr White says he is part of a secretive organisation with people placed everywhere... a second later one of M's bodyguards shoots her and facilitates White's escape. Bond gives chase but fails to catch him. He ends up following a lead that takes him to Haiti, Austria and finally Bolivia. The lead he is following is supposed environmental campaigner Dominic Greene during this pursuit he meets the main "Bond girl" Camille, a member of Greene's organisation who appears to have crossed him. As Bond gets closer to Greene he is ordered to stand down; second "Bond girl" Fields is dispatched to bring him home and the CIA are trying to kill him because they think Greene has found oil in Bolivia.

The film wasn't as bad as I'd feared but it was a bit of a mess; we were given little information about the sinister organisation apart from its name: Quantum, presumably this was to partly justify the film's title. I won't spoil Greene's goal here but will say it didn't exactly seem the sort of thing a Bond villain would usually be up to. Thankfully the acting was good, Daniel Craig is great in the role and could go on to take Sean Connery's title of "Best Bond" in time, Olga Kurylenko did well enough as Camille and Gemma Arterton was sadly underused as Fields.

Overall it was a decent action film but a sub-par as a Bond film, I hope the next film has more plot to it, this one felt like the second unit director was in charge of procedures as the film lurched from one action scene to the next with little time in between to explain what is happening and why.
1/10
Spoiler? What is there to spoil?
sunznc25 January 2009
I find it amusing we are warned that if we write a spoiler without warning readers we will be added to a blacklist and our future comments will be discarded. How can you write a spoiler about a movie that moves so fast and is edited so quickly that you can't comprehend what is really happening? But that's the point isn't it? We're not supposed to look too deep because frankly, there isn't anything there. This is like an MTV video that goes on way too long. Half way through the film I had a very vague idea of what the so called story was but I didn't really care so if I didn't understand anything after the first half, it made no difference to me. There are maybe 2 scenes in which the actors sit and talk about something but it just skims over the surface and amounts to very little. Quick editing, faced paced in your face action, exotic locale and big, big yawn!
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Undeniably the best action film of 2008. Bond is back with a vengeance.
dvc515924 October 2008
With the betrayal and death of his lover Vesper Lynd, a grief and enraged James Bond flees from both his allies and enemies in order to uncover and destroy the mysterious group known as Quantum, the group responsible for Vesper's betrayal and currently trying to stage a coup in Bolivia in order to control the country's water supply.

In short, James Bond is out for revenge, and is certainly bringing an ass-kicking with him.

Whereas Craig's intriguing debut in the excellent Casino Royale stunned audiences and critics alike; in this outing, he is a lean, mean, killing machine, with a charming yet brash, flawed personality and on a quest for vengeance. Still a novice 00-agent, Craig shows he has the chops, both in acting and physical terms, to bring Ian Fleming's most cherished character to a whole new level. His rage, his fury, it's all there in his eyes, and possibly, in his fists and legs as well. No, really. Here he runs, kicks, punches, runs and kicks some more, flips... you name it, he'll do it. Kudos to Craig, who is close to toppling Connery as the best Bond. Gone are the unrealistic days of Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore.

Also on the fast-rising scene is Ukrainian Bond girl Olga Kurylenko as Russian-Bolivian agent Camille. She also has a grudge against Quantum's chief. Kurylenko is admittedly gorgeous and spunky in her role and proves that she is also capable of some action on her own as demonstrated in some scenes in the movie. She could very well be the next Sharon Stone. Not too far behind is Mathieu Almaric, who is deliciously creepy and menacing as the villain, Dominic Greene. Here he personifies the hidden agenda of mass corporations today and he pulls it off with such conviction you'll almost fall for his words. He is one of the best things in the film. Gemma Arterton is delectable as the other Bond girl, charming agent Fields. Rounding off the supporting cast is returning actors Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, and the ever-reliable Dame Judi Dench as M.

Cinematographer Dennis Gassner's work is reminiscent of Ken Adam's lavish settings of the 60's era Bond films, with exotic locales such as Panama (doubling for Haiti and Bolivia), Italy, and the Atacama Desert in Chile, being used in all their glory and in a grandeur fashion, the latter metaphorically showing Bond's rigid emotions (as explained by the director). Not only that, it also has moments of pure grittiness and bleakness. Accompanying the cinematography is David Arnold's fast paced yet classical orchestral score, which is grand and exciting at times. The theme song by Alicia Keys and Jack White, however, is the low point of the film as it is too "rock-like", and not suitable as a Bond song.

However, much praise to the script and the direction. The story is the driving force of the film, and while admittedly the action upstages the actors, the story still shows and there is quite a lot to indulge in. The direction is where it gets his highest merit. Marc Forster, having directed arty-films like "Monster's Ball" and "The Kite Runner", shows off his knack and flair in his fluid and solid direction of the film and makes the film his own. It's a complete 180 turnaround than what Forster has ever done before, and he proves that he is a guy capable of directing action films. He should be on the front-list for Bourne 4. The movie is chock full of kinetic action sequences that engages the viewer and it has them all, fights, gunfights, car chases, even a boat chase and a plane chase is thrown into the chaos for our enjoyment. This film is pure rock-em', sock-em, no-holds-barred action. The CGI (God was merciful on that) is not overused, with hordes of genuine and painful stunts galore, and it is a good sign that old-school action movies are back with dominating force at the movies.

In short, it is a great film and addition to the Bond saga (while still close behind Casino Royale), with its intense, explosive nonstop action, dark, moody atmosphere and dramatic performances. It will have a position in my Top 10 James Bond films. If you like action, do yourself a favor and see this movie. Daniel Craig proves that James Bond 007 is back, with a vengeance.

Overall value: 7.4/10

Delton
3/10
Not sure what to say
atinder15 January 2015
Quantum of Solace I was to Keen on he whole reboot with last move , I understand this was being made while script writers were on strike But still no excuse to pull this out.

I am going to keep short , as I have no ideas how to describe this movie

I felt it had a lot more action the the last movie , don't parts of it I enjoyed .

I felt there was some random actions scenes were in there such for sake of it.

Nothing really stood out to me at all., I already forgot how it ended

3/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Utter rubbish - Awful
cskjott9 November 2008
You would think that the 007 consortium headed by Broccoli would be very picky in the continuing saga of JB 007‚ but with Quantum of Solace they have really hit rock bottom with surprising indifference to the solid good ol' material at hand.

In short - confusing throughout - incoherent - ghastly camera action and the worst editing ever - unexplained plot or self-explained? - stupid dialog even abrupt (who checked or questioned the script?) - dull ending - pointless overall - worst soundtrack ever - In fact nothing but a disgraceful waste of my time and good money

As a devout Bond fan and expecting a whole new bag of beans - and it did look promising when I viewed Casino Royale with Craig as the new 007 - I feel nothing but shortchanged and sorely disappointed which not even a good nights sleep will wear down.

However for those involved I shall say this: Nice titles by Mk12 (however crap song detracts) and hats off to choice of Bond girl - Olga is terrific eye candy - just glimpses really due to the very disturbed camera action - and Craig makes a good photo‚ suited up in immaculate duds as he mutters rubbish lines (though him wearing the same cool shades with the confusing agenda throughout the film is a gaff) - Actually great art direction hidden which is very poorly explored by the nuts managing the camera and certainly not helped by even worse editing.

I wouldn't even recommend it as a DVD on a rainy Sunday - but should be ignored and left at the counter as the disaster it is to remind the people in charge that this is not the way ahead‚ put in in plain English: Quantum of Solace is nothing but a 'sugarcoated' insult to any 007 enthusiast.
2/10
Just Horrible
Mustang9226 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How in God's name could they screw this Bond movie up so badly? How???

The director, Marc Forster, has done some good movies before. Was this one just "out of his league" due to all the heavy action sequences? The action sequences all SUCK, every one of them. Not only are they poorly cut together, there's even one that is cut together with an opera on a theatre stage. Not a bad idea, necessarily, but it doesn't work here. Just awful. Even the climax of the movie, the last action sequence, is utterly horrible... a massive building/structure in the middle of a desert, that inexplicably is able to have successive explosions to enhance the finale. Pulllleeease.

The writers, one being Paul Haggis, has written some excellent stuff. So how could this script be so poor? A storyline that not only is convoluted, but lacks story logic. Oh, sure, a lot of studio movies lack story logic or have horrible plot lines, but c'mon, this is inexcusable for a Bond film.

I like Craig as Bond (thus this movie gets 2 stars instead of the lowest rating), but he does play it as a serious (and some here say brooding) Bond. There are no humorous moments and no "charmingly rogue-ish" side to this Bond. It is a film devoid of any humor, and that's a shame.

Perhaps that's because he's after the people responsible for the death of someone close to him (or that he loved). But this is all backstory, we don't see him being with whoever he supposedly cared about before she was killed. And that's indicative of the whole movie: None of the characters have ANY character development, so we don't care about any of them. They can live or die (and most die), but who cares? The writers really failed here with this script.

The producers of this movie? They should all be forbidden from future outings of Bond films, and Ms. Broccoli should license this franchise to producers who know how to make a good movie with a compelling story. Quit phoning this in, Ms. Broccoli. You're doing a serious disservice to this franchise with "Quantum."
4/10
Quantum of Solace - WTF!
jonathanruano31 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace was obviously made for Bolivians only, because they are the only ones who are going to care about its plot - which involves a villain Dominic Greene trying to corner 60% of Bolivia's water supply so he can force the new Bolivian government to pay top dollar for it. Dull right? Yeah, absolutely right. But that's not the only problem with Quantum of Solace. Mark Foster and the producers got the main villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) all wrong. The best kind of villain for a Bond movie is very eccentric (if not insane), has a sinister looking face, could be a bit of a nerd, has a black sense of humour, does incredibly evil things that you would not expect (like dump a woman in a river of piranhas), and usually has a great master plan which he is just aching to reveal to the hero James Bond. And usually the makers of James Bond get this villain down to a tea: take Dr. No in "Dr. No," Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice" and "For Your Majesty's Secret Service," or Francisco Scaramunga in "The Man with the Golden Gun," or Renaud in "The World is not Enough" and so on. But Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene is just too dull, too nice and too prissy to come across as even remotely evil. As for the other bad guys, they are an embarrassment to evil people everywhere. I personally think Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Pervez Musharraf, Islam Karimov, Omar Bashir and Robert Mugabe should file a law suit against the producers who made this film for making them look bad by putting them in the same category as Dominic Greene.

The other problem with this movie is that it is really only about chase scenes. Car chases, running, motorcycle chases, plane chases, more running... a bit monotonous and tiresome, don't you think? This movie has more chases than "Live and Let Die" and "the Man with the Golden Gun" put together and that's an achievement. But not an achievement to be proud of, because there is no room for, let's say, a much better plot, great Bond dialogue, sexy scenes with centre-fold women (in fact, the only scenes I enjoyed in this entire Bond film involved James Bond (Daniel Craig) and the sexy red head Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), though I am not quite sure when they started finding each other attractive), and interactions between the villain and Bond.

Finally, I think the director got James Bond wrong. Daniel Craig's personality is so icy that his charisma evaporates; he makes Roger Moore look like Alfie. I realize that this was how Daniel Craig is supposed to play Bond and he does it very well. But at the same time, an openly cold and unsympathetic personality does not work in the context of a fun Bond film (Casino Royale was different, because it works as a serious Bond film). James Bond always had a shadow over him, but he also knew how to tuck it away when he was seducing women. We do not see that kind of Bond here and I think that is a mistake.
2/10
Worst Bond movie EVER!
ericjg6233 February 2014
I saw this in the theatre a few years ago when it came out, and the funny thing was, I couldn't remember a thing about it. So, when it was on cable TV a couple nights ago, I decided to watch it again to see if it was any good.

It wasn't. Indeed, I found out why I couldn't remember anything about it the first time, because there was nothing worth remembering about it the second time, either.

It's a given that most James Bond movies have plots that range from over-the-top to the downright preposterous, but nonetheless the plots are at least understandable. But "Quantum of Solace" has no plot at all, at least none that I could discern. It's just a bunch of action and fight scenes and car chases strung together with no central story to make you care about any of them. But beyond that, what was lacking in this movie was any sense of fun or style, two things that could usually redeem even the worst of previous Bond efforts. Bond is grim throughout, and one gets the sense that neither he nor "M" (Judi Dench) particularly like or trust each other.

The whole point of the Bond series was that it was pure, escapist fantasy. It presented a world in which you got to drive fast cars, travel to exotic locales, and have sex with gorgeous women. The whole thing was about glamour and style, and reality be damned! But apparently the current trend is to have Bond movies strive more for gritty realism. Well, I guess they got the "Grit" part right, but in the process tossed out all the fun and charm. In short, this movie fails as even good entertainment. Indeed, you would be much better served watching the silly Vin Diesel effort "xXx", with Diesel playing the wise-cracking, tattooed anti-Bond and Samuel L Jackson having ten times as much fun as Judi Dench in the role of his "Boot to ass" boss.
1/10
Frenetic abysmal failure
royvictoresq17 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
49 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
He's back as a combination of the Terminator and Bourne.

He doesn't need sleep.Can drink 6 gin cocktails straight down with no effect.Can jump off roofs landing on concrete or a bus top with no sprains. Fails 30 feet through a glass roof landing on scaffolding without a scratch or damage to his suit.Falls hundreds of feet from an aeroplane, but only needs the parachute for the last few feet.

And fast. He's so fast you don't see his moves. Handcuffed in an elevator with 4 presumably lethally trained agents. He's renders the lot of them unconscious & is out of the cuffs & rearmed in seconds.

Even though he credit cards are frozen, he still travels with ease. And his intuition is so advanced, he can tell where in a ferociously burning & exploding building his female chum is cowering. The jump cut editing makes all the action sequences so fast that they become chaotic & incomprehensible. Utterly, totally unbelievable visual gibberish. The makers should be ashamed. But they won't be because they have already made money.
4/10
James Bond is dead so why did i watch this?!!!!
kooleshwar6 December 2008
Yes i did watch this movie with a negative bias.

I knew when i watched Casino Royale that the new guys in charge of bond has purposely changed as much as they could about the franchise with intent of widening its audience under the guise that bond had to change with the times.

And even though i normally don't read normally read reviews before i watch a movie, in this case i made an exception because bond is one favourite franchises (others include the original star wars, indiana jones, and other classics of the 70s and 80s).

And when i the reviews confirmed my suspicions about almost every sacred relic in the bond franchisee being destroyed I made up my mind not to see this movie.

But humans are self destructive and i found myself in a theatre watching this movie.

When bond didn't pounce and shoot at the beginning of the movie i knew i was in trouble.

WITHOUT GETTING INTO DETAILS ITS SAFE TO SAY ALMOST EVERY BOND STEREOTYPE AND SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN THIS MOVIE.

Its been said before and i repeat that this movie feels more like the bourne series than bond series, (which were very ordinary films compared to the books), which is no surprise considering that so many people from those movies find themselves here.

The length allows for no story telling and it feels like a chapter in a book rather than an entire story.

The lesser said about the villain the better gone are the days of the bond super villains who inspired as much interest as did bond, there is an attempt to resurrect spectre in this movie but given the new teams ruthless attempts at changing everything i don't see many positives there either.

The villain feels like a puny lackey than a menacing ganglord whos worthy of bond.

AND They've TAKEN OUT THE INTERESTING AND Powerful STRONGMAN AWAY TOO.

I CAN KEEP ON RAVING ABOUT HOW THE MAKERS HAVE A BIGGER BOURNE HANGOVER THAN MAKING A BOND FILM BUT WILL REQUIRE PAGES AND CAUSE AN EMOTIONAL BRAKEDOWN.

So lets get to the good parts.

Miss fields looks gorgeous but is compensated to some degree by the normally vexing olga looking ordinary.

Even though the action scenes feel like bourne some of them are quite good especially if you like the shaky camera which im not too found off.

The acting is top class as far as standalone acting goes but lacks the flamboyance and flare that came to be associated with bond.

Not a single character can be termed as interesting.

IM STILL COMPLAING IT SEEMS TO STRAIGHT TO THE CONCLUSION.

FOR THE CLASSICAL ROMANTICS THIS MOVIE IS A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

FOR THOSE WHO CELEBRATE CHANGE REGARDLESS OF ITS RESULTS THIS IS A GOOD MOVIE.

FOR THOSE WHO WATCH IT LIKE ANY OTHER MOVIE ITS MERELY OK.

Please proceed with extreme caution if you fall in the first category.

-s bond is dead, lousy villains, no character is interesting, no storytelling.

+/-s shaky camera, how much change is good????.

+s good acting for any other movie, some good action scenes.

total 4/10 ( factoring in the fact that it fell below my expectations however if i fully factor in how much this movie has disturbed me I would have given a much lower rating, please watch this movie as any other spy action flick if you wish to derive maximum pleasure from it, I STILL WISH THOUGH I HADNT WATCHED THIS FILM).
1/10
Main fault? It ain't a Bond film
rcnaylor19 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(Spoilers) First, I've never been a big fan of the Bond franchise. I've seen most of them and would call myself a fair weather fan. The good ones are OK, take them or leave them otherwise.

But, I just caught the last one at the dollar show and was simply amazed by what it was and what it wasn't.

I remember remarking on here awhile back that it was curious that the latest Bond flick was rated better by women on IMDb than guys, considering what Bond flicks were. Well, now I understand. The latest incarnation of "Bond" bears almost no resemblance to what the original Bond recipe was all about.

Originally it was about a suave, macho lady's man (in the way feminists reviled) who used gadgets and brains to beat the other side in the cold war to save the free world. Lots of T and A.

The cold war is over. The latest one is, once you get through all the plot subterfuges and smoke screens to make you think something to affect the world is going on, is really just a bad ol multinational corporation going through all these terribly dangerous and expensive machinations to get to be the new utilities company for a relatively poor South American country. Huh? All you do is bribe the govt and collect your money. World wide attacks on top intelligence agencies not required. Of course, the producers try to give it the obligatory green twist required in Hollywood today that Bond is saving the planet somehow (here groundwater), but, really, there is just a few "secret" dams. The water is there, we saw this same "bad guy" building dams in old west movies about water rights. (The bad guy is starving us poor little honest folks downstream Mr Western hero.) Instead of a the macho free world saving Bond, we have one that is running around being loyal and trying to get revenge for one woman and save his other one (Boss lady M). Put him on a white horse and let him go charge a castle. Big Whoop.

Nothing more than a cell phone, diggy camera and internet link are used as his "edge" in gadgets and technology.

Leaving T&A as the only remaining element of the Bond franchise to keep it true to what this whole Bond thing is/was supposed to be about for its fans - and there was none. Literally. "Marley and Me" designed largely for 10 year olds had more sex and titillation than the friggen Bond film. Seriously.

This certainly had a neutered James Bond whose only goal in life was to show two women how special they were. Sex and the City fans would have been proud. Bond fans? Give it a 4 on competent action movie scenes of car chases, boat chases and fist fights to the death. The plot was ridiculous bordering on non-existent. The global threat was a joke. The Bond actor was fine as an action hero/knight on white horse for the ladies in the audience. But, he bore no resemblance to the character that made Bond, Bond.

They literally made a Bond film without anything a real fan of Bond films would call a Bond film.

The next time you owe your lady a chick flick with hero worried only about saving his lady love, call Bond, James Bond, but frankly, you'd probably enjoy a Sex in the City movie more. At least there will be a little eye candy in those.
5/10
Jason Bourne gave Bond an Identity Crisis
kemicon17 November 2008
In an effort to re-imagine the franchise the creators of this film forgot about character. This is a Bond in name only. Gone are the gadgets, the one liners, the innuendo, the humor, and worst of all anything that has to do with being a spy. We never see Bond using his wits to get out of a jam which is a shame because that's what being Bond (or Bourne for that matter) is all about.

Unfortunately it's not just an identity crisis that keeps this film down. The plot has a case of ADD. Bond jumps from country to country in a flash and it's very hard to follow what is actually going on. It should be noted that this film is supposed to take place very shortly after Casino, so If you had just watched that film some things may make more sense. All in all it's a confusing mess of a plot that is more in line what you'd find in the latest Xbox 360 game than in a feature film. I found myself still wanting the movie to begin even as the closing credits began to roll.

Not the worst movie in the world but a misstep in the evolution of the series.
2/10
The end of Bond as we know it
cinematic_aficionado20 November 2008
It seems that the studios continue their efforts to downgrade James Bond to a dummy action hero.

For those that are not aware James Bond was a graduate from Eton, the country's most prestigious and elitist institution, later serving as a commander at the Royal Navy where secret service recruited him from.

However this style-less, violent, machine-gun loving, destroy-all-in-my-passage "guy" (who also does to wear the super tailor made suits we were accustomed to) is acting in a manner that bears no resemblance to the credentials worthy of a Bond degrading the genre from spy/thriller to action/adventure. In other words, one of the finest franchises in cinematic history is fast becoming a flick.

The more I watched, the more it occurred to me that I was in a Die Hard or Mission Impossible screening, definitely not a Bond.

Again, just as it happened with Casino Royale, the numbers at the box office justified this downgrade. Just because it was a commercial success, does not make it a good film.
3/10
quantum of solace
marmar-6978011 June 2020
Wow,what a massive step down was this film compared to brilliant casino royale,it is honestly hard to comprehand what was happening on screen and it felt like director and editors are making a huge prank on us,i will just say that camera work,editing and cutting shots is horrible and it could be one of worsest i ever saw and becase of that action set pieces suffered a lot,even normal conversations were hard to handle,and to put your interest in them,craig was far weaker here compared to first his film , bond girl was without personality and she was waste of space,villain,lol what villain,i actually watched this movie 5 minutes ago and i cant remember who were villains,quantum of solace was just a big plain of unorginized mess
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bonded To The Here, Now and Future
bushtony1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
45 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
QoS is the fastest moving, most visceral, bone-crunching, eye-wateringly stunt-laden Bond move yet made. Where CR was a roller-coaster ride with longish quieter stretches of track for contemplation, drama and character development, QoS is a roller-coaster ride with seriously reduced stretches of track and less respite. My guess is, that in response to the CR critics claiming that there is no place for character development in a Bond movie, that Bond shouldn't be too emotional, CR was too long, CR didn't have enough action or set-pieces, the producers have reacted with the shortest, punchiest, diamond-hardest staccato rap-attack they could muster. QoS is a continuous blast from beginning to end.

This is the deal – if you want protracted and deliberate plot spoon-feeding, if you can't multi-task, if you are so pussy-whipped to a sissy state that searing, pulse pounding action cinema makes you close your eyes and cry, if you want a Jane Austen costume-drama, you won't get what you want from this film. If, like Chris Tookey of The Mail, you thought that CR was romantic art-house Bond, and romantic art-house cinema is what excites you, then you're going to find this boring in comparison.

However, if you want the full-monty kick in the balls, sock in the jaw, rabbit punch to the kidneys, cinematic acid-burn to the eyeballs, gut-wrenching adrenaline rush to the synapses, you're going to have a great time.

Craig is all business here, still a revelation as 007. He's not crying any longer (much). He's out to cut a swathe through the villains and despatch and destroy, burn and blow-up anything that gets in his path, or threatens to deflect him from it. Cool, muscular, sardonic, full of subtle nuances and mannerisms that communicate so much to the audience – provided they are paying attention, that is. He has now consolidated the domination of another strata of the character – that of the trained killer on a mission. He's perfected the art of dispensing death and destruction with a compelling brutal, cavalier elegance. An absolute joy to watch.

As for the content of the film, here is a list of things that the pretenders (some of those delusional people who pretended to have seen it prior to release) got completely wrong:

Camille does not die. Correct. Anyone who said so, didn't see the film and was lying through their scum sucking teeth.

Bond does not resign at the end. (More later).

Bond has not not gone completely rogue. He is supported and sanctioned by M for most of the film: "He's my agent and I trust him."

There are some satisfyingly subtle quips and one-liners:

"Don't bleed to death."

"She's sea sick."

Mathis: "I think she has handcuffs." Bond: "I do hope so."

"We're teachers on a sabbatical. We've just won the lottery."

"Can I make a suggestion? Why don't you people find a better place to meet?"

Camille: "Your mother?" Bond: "She likes to think so."

And more.

As for Arnold's score, it's another triumph of mood, atmosphere and relevance. It pounds daringly during the action, emotionally compliments the quieter moments. The signatures drawn from the theme song are incorporated. As in CR, segments of the Bond theme itself is utilised at key moments throughout.

The title sequence (banal theme song apart) is stark and hard-hitting, incorporating teasing hints of the Bond gun barrel into it's conception.

The henchmen have little to do, but Dominic Greene is a fine, vile, villain. Oh, by the way, as far as the audience is concerned, he does die in the end. At Bond's orchestration.

Pleasingly referenced are Goldfinger (Fields coated in oil – an irony, because "there isn't any" oil). The Spy Who Loved Me (Sandor being held over the edge of a high building; the desert trek, etc).

Any critic who states that the film consists of a series of completely random action sequences must have been watching something completely different – everything has a logical place, purpose and rationale within the narrative. Plus, anyone who couldn't follow the plot, which is clearly obvious and well defined throughout, has a serious case of receptive dysphasia. My daughter, who is fourteen, had no problems. And she's blonde.

Lastly, I totally loved the interplay between Bond and Mathis. Worth the price of admission alone. The poignancy and tenderness (yes, tenderness) woven into their interaction, especially at a certain critical point, was beautifully rendered. Craig's emotion-wracked delivery of the line: "He wouldn't care," is almost heart-rending.

Finally, the ending was a real coup and this is a true spoiler:

M: "I need you back." Bond: "I never left." Cue – gun barrel. Cue - Bond theme.

The gun barrel, Craig's first classic one, is a terrific way to end the film. Think about those final lines and the inclusion of that iconic image/sequence. What does that say? For me, it absolutely pegs out a stall, lays down an agenda for the future, makes a statement that Bond is here to stay. He will return.

Personally I can't wait.

Better than CR?

No, it's different. Tone, style, content – different.

If I believed in such things, I would rate it 8/10. Perhaps more importantly I would conclude ultimately that if you are a Bond fan and a fan of thoughtful action cinema, my guess is you really can't go wrong and you'll appreciate it no end.

I can't wait to see it again. That's the truth.
1/10
Poor filming, chopped up action sequences
unggrabb6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
391 out of 553 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thought this was one of the worst Bond movies ever. Nothing of the magic that made many of the other 007 movies so special was to be found here. The cutting of the film is terrible. masses of 2 second sequences thrown together - for no apparent reason. (as the movie is so boring I found myself counting "one...two...) over and over again. If the action is poor it appears a cheap trick to try to "create interest" by chopping it all up and using 25 cameras to shoot that which has no interest. It just comes across as irritating and silly.

The car chase sequence in the beginning might have been good, if the filming thereof had been better. What could have been fantastic was destroyed (again) by the poor cutting of the movie. masses of sub second fractions thrown together making everyone confused as to who was being chased, who crashed etc.

The race scene in Siena was utterly stupid. The cut back and forth from the Bond action to the race action again and again was utterly unrelated and therefore pointless.

The scene in the movie were Bond discovers the underground lake and states "he is draining all the water" as an explanation to the central "badness" that the villain is about to do is utterly laughable and silly.

The end scenes with the building which is designed to explode step by step was the last straw. I have rarely seen anything more staged and unbelievable. I considered leaving a few times as the movie was so boring but then I thought that "can it get any worse"? and yes, it could and did.

We want James Bond 007 back again, lets pass this "experiment" into history and forget that it ever happened.

The previous movie Casino Royale was a good action movie, though it wasn't a Bon movie (either). The Jason Bourne formula works, but Bourne is Not Bond and this is not a Bourne movie, i don't really know how to classify other than "utterly pointless", I couldn't see any redeeming features, no plausbile plot, no interesting characters, no fantastic sceneries, awful title song, no "Bond"-ness - at all
1/10
Terrible movie!
aeo16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where do I start. First of all, I want to say that I left the theater after 30 minutes because I could no longer stay and watch the rest of the movie. The movie, in my opinion, was that bad.

What was wrong with it?

(1) Bond movies usually have a great central villain. If you look at Bond movies from the 1960's through the 1980's, and for the most part the 1990's, Bond movies had interesting villains. The villain in this movie evokes little or no emotion in that you do not care if he wins or not because he is not diabolical enough. Bond villains are usually over the top and megalomaniac. The villain in this movie is just a generic bad guy in my opinion. Totally uninteresting.

(2) This movie had no real substance in that there was a great deal of action but no real dialog. In a Bond movie, there is usually a great conversation between the characters. For example, those smart quips between Q and Bond or Moneypenny and Bond or the head of the MI6 and Bond. Most of the conversation in this movie very terse and uninteresting.

(3) The gadgets is what makes Bond movies so interesting and something that people cannot wait to see. Do you all remember when Q would demonstrate some cool gadget to Bond and you just had to exclaim "wow" because it was so interesting? There was none like that here. That is not to say that there was no interesting gadgets but that the gadgets that were presented only got a lukewarm response. For instance, Bond had this IPhone like cell phone that does more than your average IPhone but it does not evoke any exciting response because you know it will be within reach in a couple of years.

(4) The action while "nice" was scattered and not focused. The type of cinematography presently is to shake the camera, more or less, with the action. I personally never liked that style of movie making and find that disorienting. That's not to say that it was like that throughout the film but I noticed it during action sequences.

(5) The new Bond is still not my cup of tea. Yes, he is probably more close to what Ian Fleming envisioned for Bond; meaning, gritty and no nonsense British agent but I grew up with Roger Moore, and in my opinion, Pierce Brosnan, and of course Sean Connery, are the "classic" Bond.

I will describe what I saw in that 30 minutes and you make up your mind.

The movie starts with some chase scene through what looks like the Italian Alps. In the back of Bond car is some guy and he is delivered to MI6. The guy claims he is from some secretive agency and that they have members all over the world. At that point, one of the British agent in the room kills the guy and kills some of the people in the room and takes off, and Bond chases him until he is killed. He later searches for some clue of this organization in Haiti where he kills some man and assumes his identity. He saves a girl who is supposed to be killed by the very man whose identity he has stolen. The person who wanted her dead is suppose to be the central villain in this movie where he wants to destabilize some Latin American country so that they can take over a patch of land where there might be oil. That's it.
1/10
i am Blond, James Blond
maddog-5019 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
O.K. all Bond fans are aware of that the Q-made gadgets do not exist in reality, that the MI6 has no alpha male 00X agents and that the gargantuan terror weapons of the Bond villains could not exist in physical reality etc. etc. BUT...this is all Bond is about!

If you want to see 'realistic' or closer-to-the-reality action and violence, probably every kid on this planet knows, this not Bonds business, go and watch something else like Jason Burne in action!

We do not need a modernized more realistic Bond, we do not want a grounded average secret agent every pencil pusher could identify with. There was no need at all, to show all Bond fans that a real agent is not like James Bond. We already knew it, Dadgummit!

Bond is and must be larger than live! The super macho with super gadgets like super cars and super chicks and a laser shooting wristwatch, and not-so-subtle product placements in every Bond flick.

That is what i want to see, and not that crap we have seen in the last two 'Bond' movies.
5/10
Interesting Bond Flick With Some Good Bits But Lacklustre Direction
ShootingShark15 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
British spy James Bond is investigating Quantum, a secret society with a shady agenda led by environmental philanthropist Dominic Greene. He uncovers a CIA-approved plot to control the water supply in Bolivia, but his reckless actions threaten to spark an international incident.

The second Bond film for Craig is perhaps a little better than its predecessor (the boring Casino Royale), but not by much in my opinion. The previous movie was too long and didn't have enough action but this one has plenty of thrills (an opening car chase, a rooftop fight, a speedboat chase, an aerial dogfight, a fiery finale) and is much shorter than all the previous Bond flicks, so no complaints there. It also has the usual great locations and some fabulous opulent sets by one of my favourite art directors, Dennis Gassner (Miller's Crossing, Big Fish), so it looks terrific. But I'm afraid I have some hefty problems, chiefly the choice of Forster as director. He's good with drama (Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner) but I'm not so sure of his action credentials - he makes the classic MTV-generation mistake of assuming that if he just cuts the action scenes together very fast that will somehow make them very exciting. Wrong; take the rooftop chase scene, which has some amazing stuntwork as Bond and the henchman fall through a skylight into an atrium and dangle precariously from ropes and scaffold. Can anybody actually follow what's happening in this sequence without watching it at about quarter-speed ? I certainly can't - we get no setups to familiarise ourselves with the place, we have almost no sense of where the actors are in relation to each other at any given time and we get at most a second to make sense of each shot before we're on to the next. This is poor, lazy filmmaking from a director who either isn't thinking from the audience's point of view or just hasn't prepared properly. My other bugbear is that there are several key plot points and character arcs which are a continuation of the Casino Royale plot - another mistake. Bond films should be episodic, dumping whatever happened in the previous one completely in favour of a new adventure. Here, Giannini and Christensen reprise their roles directly, Wright also reappears (but is not really involved in the same plot) and Yusef, the agent in the epilogue, is referenced in the previous film but doesn't actually appear. What !? Who the hell wants to remember all that ? It's a James Bond movie ferchrissake ! Just gimme guns, gadgets and girls with big knockers - I don't want the story to be Middlemarch. Despite all this though there is quite a lot fun to be had here. Craig's Bad Boy Bond is undeniably cool, albeit prone to unnecessary occasional fits of remorse, Ukranian actress Kurylenko is a lot of fun and gets in on all the action, Amalric makes a good villain with his black eyes and white suits, although as with the previous baddie his evil scheme is pretty lacklustre (something to do with fixing Bolivian water rates), Dench is solid, but best I think is goofy Arterton as consulate envoy Strawberry Fields, whose name and fate are both good old-fashioned real James Bond stuff. Whilst it doesn't quite gel together, there are some really good scenes - the best I think is when Quantum are having a top-secret meeting by attending a performance of Tosca and talking via high-tech earphones. Bond steals one of the mikes, listens to all their plans, cheerfully breaks into their conversation and then photographs them all as they hurriedly get up to leave. This movie (and this franchise) needs more humour like this. All in all then, a mixed bag - good fun, but it doesn't cut the mustard for me as a Bond flick. Could we have John Woo in the director's chair next time please ?
10/10
Edgy & Epic!
vengeance2017 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw this in Cinemas back in 2008 & thought it was an epic entry in the Franchise & a highly underrated & wrongfully hated film!

The film picks up right where the ending of Casino Royale left off, James Bond & M sniff a shadowy international network of power and corruption reaping billions. As Bond pursues the agents of an assassination attempt on M, all roads lead to Dominic Greene, a world-renowned developer of Green Technology. Greene, a nasty piece of work, is intent on securing a barren area of Bolivia in exchange for helping a strongman stage a coup there. The C. I. A. Looks the other way, and only Bond, with help from a retired spy and a mysterious beauty, stands in Greene's way. M wonders if she can trust Bond, or if vengeance possesses him. Can anyone drawn to Bond live to tell the tale?

I found the film to be epic! It's edgy, gritty & far more intense than what Casino Royale was, of course Daniel Craig himself wanted this Bond Film to be more edgy & boy did deliver! The action never let's up from the word go! The fights, explosions & faced paced snappy editing really adds to the ruthlessness of what Bond is & Craig does this very well! The villain is pretty good & the eye candy was something else!

I also noticed that this Bond Film is quite short (but that's NOT a bad thing!), the shortest of all 24 Films for that matter at 1 hour & 37 minutes & that's great along with the lighting fast pacing! The colour pallet consisting of the Dark Blues, Oranges, Golds & Sandy colours was quite a nice touch & added to the choice of scenery which matched well!

My only complaint is that the film is over pretty fast, but that's probably because I enjoy it so much! I realistically don't get the hate this film gets, like Die Another Day, I think this film is overrated, BADLY! Moreover, I felt Casino Royale dragged too much with scenes of talking & drawn out scenery shots while this film actually gets on with what it's supposed to deliver!

Overall, this is an epic Bond Film & definitely one of my favourites of Craig's Bond as well as in general!

10/10.
5/10
Nothing About This Bourne-Again Bond Is Breathtaking . . .
zardoz-1325 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cobra-faced actor Daniel Craig—the fifth to play James Bond—is in better shape than the new 007 epic "Quantum of Solace." If the previous Bond outing "Casino Royale" struck you as abysmal, the threadbare "Quantum of Solace" scrapes the bottom of the barrel. David Bradley's rough & tumble second-unit action sequences and Simon Crane's stunts provide the only bright spots. Unfortunately, neither Craig's virile 007 nor the gripping fisticuffs can salvage this mundane melodrama that resumes the narrative where "Casino Royale" left off with Bond confronting one of the villains. Subsequently, if you missed "Casino Royale," "Quantum's" plot convolutions may mystify you. Since Bond producer Cubby Broccoli died, the Bond movies have hit the skids. "Quantum" is the briefest Bond in history and the least compelling if you're a traditional 007 fan. In fact, "Monster's Ball" director Marc Forster looks like he is making a Jason Bourne thriller rather than a James Bond movie.

Ian Fleming's James Bond debuted in 1962 with Sean Connery in "Dr. No." The Bond movies revolutionized spy thrillers. Before most people could buy the next Fleming novel, United Artists churned out a sequel "From Russia, With Love." The third 007 caper "Goldfinger" created the template for Bonds, and "Thunderball" ensured the longevity of the franchise. No sooner had Bond redefined spy thrillers than everybody cloned them. Of course, Bond extravaganzas have always embraced adventure more than espionage. Incredibly, in the Cold War era, the Bond producers refused to censure the evil Soviet empire. Instead, 007 battled S.P.E.C.T.R.E, a.k.a. Special Executive for Counter-Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion with larger-than-life villains straight out of old cliffhanger movies like Ming the Merciless from the Flash Gordon serials. The Bond movies displayed no qualms about occasionally slamming the Red Chinese. After "You Only Live Twice" in 1967 the Bonds backed off Mao's minions.

Since "Casino Royale," the new Bonds have forsaken everything that made the longest running franchise original. Audiences watch Bond movies for 007's gadgets, the girls, the exotic locales, and the outlandish stunts. Not only were Bondian foes arch villains who sought to destroy society, but they hatched bizarre plans to achieve their ends. Sometimes, Bond movies scuttled credibility to keep up with the times. For example, "Star Wars" inspired "Moonraker." Nevertheless, 007 gallivanted from one bed to the next for nymphs with naughty names, trumped a gallery of heinous henchmen, and saved the world from extinction.

By 1989, Cubby Broccoli overhauled the series with the gritty, hard-as-nails "License to Kill." The strategy backfired, and United Artists refused to promote the picture. After the "License to Kill" debacle, Pierce Brosnan donned the tuxedo and Cubby restored the Roger Moore formula. When production costs escalated, the new Bond producers sacked Brosnan and started from scratch. "Casino Royale" harkened back to the level-headed "For Your Eyes Only," but the success of prequels—primarily George Lucas's second "Star Wars" trilogy —prompted daughter Barbara Broccoli to re-start the franchise with Bond earning his license to kill.

"Quantum of Solace" breaks more rules that "Casino Royale." The trademark gun barrel opening scene that started the 20 previous Bonds now precedes the end credits. Actually, "Quantum" qualifies as a sequel to "Casino," something the Bonds have never done. Neither Ms. Moneypenny nor Q return. "Casino Royale" wrapped with Bond getting the drop on the villainous Mr. White. "Quantum" opens with 007 careening in his Aston Martin through scenic Italy with a carload of trigger-happy thugs blasting away at him. Bond has Mr. White of "Casino Royale") stashed in the trunk. He delivers White to M for interrogation. No sooner has their interrogation begun than M's bodyguard Mitchell (utility stunt man Glenn Foster) starts shooting and White escapes. Before he does get away, White chuckles about how the anonymous criminal syndicate that he belongs to has infiltrated virtually every intelligence agency in the world.

Bond chases Mitchell and kills him. Meanwhile, British Intelligence traces the money that Le Chiffre, the "Casino Royale" villain, used to a geologist in Panama. Bond tangles with a goon hiding in the dead geologist's motel room. He recovers an attaché case that leads him to a mysterious dame. Camille (Olga Kurylenko of "Hitman") has been sleeping with Dominic Green (Mathieu Amalric of "Marie Antoinette"), a hypocritical megalomaniacal environmentalist. Every time 007 collars a bad guy, Green's people ice them and frame Bond for the killing. Green plans to topple the Bolivian government so he can buy up the country's water supply and resell it at higher prices to its new president. Green installs the corrupt General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio of "Hitgirl") in the presidential palace. Medrano, it turns out, murdered Camille's father, strangled her mother and her sister. Camille's pursuit of Medrano resembles the Roger Moore Bond movie "For Your Eyes Only." Bond teams up with Camille to thwart Green and Medrano.

Just as the villains in "Casino Royale" were lightweights, the "Quantum of Solace" villains are twerps who endanger their own people more than 007. Green wields an axe against Bond but is so incompetent that he whacks his own foot. Green's scheme to monopolize natural global resources is negligible compared with better Bond villains. The fights and the shoot-outs grow monotonously repetitive. "Quantum of Solace" barely registers on the Richter scale of excitement.
3/10
Ho hum
1bilbo14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went today with high expectations but was really bored. The story line is really convoluted and difficult to follow - not because it is involved but simply because it is badly put together. Against this there is one implausible action sequence after another with Bond out running and killing everybody despite the odds - are all the baddies really such poor shots?

Then we have the central person Bond - the most wooden actor ever. We are treated to this expressionless lethal Ninja who can defeat highly trained and armed guards with just a couple of blurred-action swipes of his arms. Yes, the action sequences deserve a mention - blurred movement sequences lasting a few seconds each all edited together with a healthy dose of CGI. It felt like I was watching a Playstation game.

With so many really great spy stories to pick from why can't this film franchise buy up a really good plot instead of employing 500 stunt men.
4/10
Quantum Of Humdrum Tedium.
screenman27 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is James Bond, shaky and un-stirring.

In this effort, the franchise seems to have descended towards the lowest common denominator of crash-bang shoot-em-ups.

It more-or-less began with a completely unbelievable car chase, filmed at such a tempo that would defy the best efforts of a computer-game geek. Things happened so fast that there was barely time to observe, let alone digest them. Images began smearing even on my humungous old Trinitron obelisk. There was hardly time to anticipate tension and consequence; very quickly it grew tedious, dis-involving and frankly repellent. I kept wanting 'story' but all I seemed to get was 'action'. And it was LOUD.

So the movie went on. Short, humdrum interludes of 'exposition' became punctuated by explosive bursts of utterly preposterous and boring special-effects. Movie makers, nowadays, seem not to be testing the frontiers of CGI so much as the limit of viewer gullibility. I have to say that they've long since discovered and exceeded mine, and this piece is well into implausibility land. Quite honestly; 'The Wizard Of Oz' is more believable, even as a story.

If you like this brave new world of CGM's (Computer Game Movies), then you'll likely give this a high score. Maybe you'll even win a replay. But if you were brought up on STORY and CHARACTER, then - like me - you'll begin to lose interest shortly after the credits have rolled. It was the suave and sophisticated elements that raised Bond above the other macho types. Here, he's just another homicidal thug.

Can't Recommend A Purchase.
5/10
This is not Bond.
tubby16 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace shifts considerable from the impressive Casino Royale. The events which unfold in Quantum of Solace are unengaging and bitterly disappointing.

The film opens with a car chase, a chase which cuts uncontrollably from one shot to another. I assume that the chase was meant to be an impressive edge-of-your-seat beginning but it had no such effect nor did it make any impression on the plot. I think that generally this sets the tone for the film.

The plot is lifeless it just doesn't ooze any excitement, charm or indeed danger. Olga Kurylenko doesn't fulfill her role adequately until later in the film, at the start she seems to really struggle. Daniel Craig nearly loses his star billing to Judi Dench, why does M have such a dominant role? And poor Gemma Arteton plays a British agent who is killed off just as quickly as she is introduced - Why?

Quantum of Solace doesn't fulfill the Bond thrill factor, it doesn't get close. The film is hopelessly devoid of intelligence, danger or charm. There are plot holes and an inability to deliver a coherent story.
Quantam of Solace - Missing James Bond
mokshjuneja9 November 2008
What I miss the most in the movie Quantum of Solace is "James Bond" himself. He is the one who doing the running around, literally speaking. The action sequence is mostly, Daniel Craig running behind sidekicks, cars, etc. In the whole movie, he does not say, "Bond, James Bond". He does not have the the conventional Martini, 'stirred, but not shaken'. James Bond needs to have be quirky one liners, and he didn't. James Bond needs to have some out of the world gadget and all he showed off GPRS connected Sony Erickson phone. Daniel Craig gets hurt, bruised, removes his tuxedo - very real and nice, but again not James Bond.

To watch this movie, I watched Casino Royale, the night before, was getting equipped to know more how the story will unfold. The movie actually begins where Casino Royale finishes. What I loved in the movie is that they put an end to developing the whole James Bond character, that they were developing since the previous movie, so at least next Bond movie will be with all the right elements. The other thing that I loved in the movie was the villain Dominic Greene played by Mathieu Amalric. He is most amazing in the movie and really looked wicked, and totally crooked, he had the right dialogues that he has also acted in the movie Munich - another favourite of mine. he was amazingly blunt. I have not seen all the Bond movies, but specially this one On her Majesty's Secret Service, with Robert Lazenby as James Bond where the villain was Telly Savalas. Here i feel that Telly Savals as the villain was much more powerful screen presence than Bond himself and same goes for QoS.

The theme of this James Bond has too much love, too much hate, too much revenge, when will the theme of James Bond "save the world" theme begin? Theme of this Bond movie as very clearly in the trailers is that Mr. James Bond is after the killers of Vesper Lynd - the romance that blossomed and killed in Casino Royale.
7/10
I'm surprised to say that I enjoyed Quantum of Solace
Rozinda3 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The impression I had from some pre-release writeups of QoS and when it appeared from some of the newspaper reviews was Craig wanted Bond to become the brutal, violent killer of Quantum of Solace. Perhaps that isn't true - has he ever said? Whose idea was it to bin all the Bond characteristics? I surprised myself by liking Craig a lot in The Golden Compass - I thought he'd be a disaster as Asriel, although the part so far has been very short so we shall see how it turns out later. If he'd acted Bond in CR in the same way, suave and handsome and sophisticated (yes, in GC he was suave and handsome and sophisticated which proves he can be but the Bond setup seems to want him looking as ugly/unattractive as it can manage), CR would have been a better movie in spite of the messy plot and interminable product placement and some extremely silly sequences.

Having loathed CR when I first saw it, I only recently bought a very cheap 2nd hand copy of the 2-disk DVD - it seemed a shame to pass up the chance of keeping the collection going. Watching it this second time, I enjoyed it. Not quite as much as most other Bond movies, but more than Diamonds are Forever and Never Say Never Again which I like least of the Bonds. Having to accept Craig won't go away, Bond isn't acted by a superstar with exciting style, grace and terrific charisma (which I consider all the earlier Bond actors have including Lazenby) I now feel Craig did do some good acting, wasn't as wooden as I remember him from the first viewing though he still looks a bit uneasy in the part at times. I still thought Vesper completely insipid and her delight in Bond's little finger positively sick-inducing. The collapsing building collapsed far quicker than I remembered from the first viewing when I thought it interminable. I never objected to the villain anyway. The defibrillator stuff was still silly. The mobiles and laptops weren't too effective. The Aston Martin shouldn't have been wrecked so quickly, it was totally wasted. The casino scenes with the totally wrong, very inferior game were still annoying. The Omega watch thing was still utterly pathetic . But on the whole, Craig was far better than I remembered and the movie was much better than I remembered, and I will happily watch it again.

Nonetheless, I was uneasy about QoS after the very varying and not all that good reviews I'd read. My favourite newspaper, which hadn't been quite sure about CR when others adored it, panned QoS. But I was pleasantly surprised! Indeed there is no sign of humour in this Bond movie - but as it happens it doesn't seem to need it. It isn't a Bourne clone, it's a real Bond movie, and the style I felt was quite a bit lacking in CR has returned.

The much-quoted Bourne influence is probably involved in the camera work - but I liked the camera work for Bourne and unlike various others I didn't have any problem as a rule with the frenetic camera work of QoS. Now and again the camera did move just a fraction too fast, it could induce giddiness I suspect in some viewers, but beyond that I think it enhanced what might otherwise have been run of the mill fight or chase scenes, gave them a big adrenalin rush. So I commend the Director and Camera people for this.

I loved the first chase scene in particular - extremely exciting. I was just a bit disappointed by the titles though they were better than CR. The music was OK, nothing special but far better than DAD and CR.

I thought Bond chasing Vesper's killers might become trite, but it's handled well. Craig has at last grown into the part of Bond which I felt he hadn't achieved too well in CR. Bond has changed dramatically from the guy we used to know - but after QoS I think it possible Craig could, with some "serious training", eg by his boss and her staff, start to approach the sophistication of Connery's Bond. One has to remember that Connery reportedly came to the part as a rather rough diamond and was trained by the director in all the Bond classy refinements and my didn't he project all that amazingly well so it wouldn't be out of character for this rough diamond Bond to learn as Connery did. I think after seeing QoS that Craig is at last comfortable enough in the part to be able to bring Bond up to some sophistication and after all he is supposed to be Youngish Bond still so there's time. The question though is whether he and the studio want Bond to morph into Connery or if they want to continue with Young Rough-edged, touchy, aggressive Bond. I guess Craig's next Bond movie will show us what's intended. He'll be free of the Vesper baggage, available for proper sexy stuff again, let's see if he can do it and assess a decent cocktail, discover a sense of humour, seduce the girls with the cool efficiency of the earlier Bond, drop the emotional stuff a bit, forget about mediocre Vesper......
7/10
It is all about the water and the writer's strike
Prismark107 December 2013
Quantum of Solace is not as portentous as Casino Royale the movie which partially rebooted Bond as a newly qualified Double 'O' but retained Judi Dench as 'M.'

Quantum of Solace starts 20 minutes after the events of Casino Royale with a grinding car chase sequence and revealing Quantum's double agents.

Marc Forster, the first non Commonwealth director for a Bond film is someone known for serious dramas at the time and it shows in the action sequences which were more Bourne rather than Bond.

One of the editors had worked on the Bourne franchise. It meant the action sequences lacked coherence which the audience found off putting yet looking at it again some years later, it looks better as we have got more used to with this type of fast and choppy editing.

Forster gives the film more substance with some set piece sequences such the opera scene that is the meeting point for Quantum participants.

The setting in Bolivia with its dispute about water gives the film a political edge as did the more cynical view of corporate politics. Corporations making dubious alliances with dodgy dictatorships where the bottom line is mutual exploitation and the ordinary people suffering.

The short running time meant the film did not outlive its welcome but the way Bond treated poor Mathis after he was shot did leave a nasty taste.

Bond always respected fellow agents and would not treat a fallen colleague in such a distasteful fashion.
6/10
Daniel Craig's second entry with overwhelming action and violent fights
ma-cortes15 September 2010
This the following to former Bond titled ¨Casino Royal¨ (by Martin Campbell) that was Daniel Craig introduction as tough and brutal James Bond . This inferior second outing deals with seductive James Bond ( a terrific Daniel Craig ) after getting recently the OO7 status finds at Siena interrogating a suspicious named Mr White (Jesper Christensen) but happens a setup and he pursues the traitor agent of an assassination attempt on "M" . As he tries to track down the dangerous killer on the roofs in a nail-biting pursuit. Bond attempts to chase a criminal in a high-octane race and discover clues about death his former sweetheart Vesper Lind (Eva Greene of Dreamers and Kingdom of heaven). James continues to follow the lead and decide to investigate independently of M( Judi Dench: Shakespeare in love) , MI6's chief . Following the clues all lead to corrupt Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric), a world-renowned developer of green technology who is pretending on securing a barren area of Bolivia (though filmed at Atacama desert, Chile) . Meanwhile is developed a sensational intrigue about an attempt of coup détat in Bolivia . Bond is helped by the veteran agent and friend named Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini: Man of fire, Darkness, Hannibal), besides other Cia agents (Jeffrey Wright) intervene in dark deals with Dominic . In La Paz , they are greeted by Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton of Clash of Titans and prince of Persia), an MI6 field operative from the British Consulate, who asks that Bond return to the UK on the next available flight . James disobeys and seduces her in their luxurious hotel suite . 007 who is helped by a mysterious gorgeous girl (Olga Kurylenko of Centurion and Max Payne) aboard an airplane in a terrifying high-lighting flight and confronts another aircraft and helicopter . After that , on the villain's headquarter occurs an impressive battle among enemies with explosions and violent struggles.

Daniel Craig as new James Bond is cool , lacked in irony, suavity and sympathy characterized by Roger Moore however earns coldness ,cunning , intelligence and toughness like Sean Connery and nearly to character created by Ian Fleming . Here Bond is a brutal revenger , relentless agent trying to chase obstinately the criminals , traveling around the world as Siena ,Italy , Port Prince, Haiti, Lake Constance , Austria ,Bolivia , among them , to achieve his aims , even pulling off brutal killings . As always Bond will use gadgets and spectacular cars although I miss to ¨Q¨ but in this entry doesn't appear . The picture contains sensational pursuits , frantic action packed and stimulating scenes like are the happenings on the Opera theatre , the breathtaking dogfighting , and the final in Bolivia location . Enjoyable title song by Alicia Keys and stirring musical score fitting to action by the usual Bond last entries , David Arnold . Colorful and fascinating cinematography by cameraman Roberto Scheafer . The motion picture produced by habitual producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson , being professionally directed by Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball) though with no originality . The film will appeal to James Bond series's fans.
5/10
Terrible Edition, Confused and Disrespectful Plot
claudio_carvalho27 December 2008
James Bond (Daniel Craig) captures Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) and while interrogating him with M. (Judi Dench) about his mysterious organization, her bodyguard shoots Mr. White and is killed by James Bond. The MI6 tracks his money and finds a large deposit in Haiti, where James Bond meets the Bolivian Camille (Olga Kurylenko) that believes he is her contact. Following Camille, James Bond finds Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who is plotting a coup-d'état in Bolivia for General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio); in return, he would receive lands that have no oil. Further, James Bond discovers that Camille is trying to kill General Medrano, the man that murdered his family when she was a child. While trying to revenge the death of his beloved Vesper and discover the interest of Dominic and his organization, James Bond travels to Europe. In Italy he meets his retired friend Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and together they travel to La Paz, where James Bond finds the truth about Dominic.

After the excellent "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" is a disappointing sequel. First of all, the action scenes have a terrible edition, with cuts almost every second. The plot is confused and the author seems to be more interested in a worldwide tour than in the story itself. Last but not the least, Bolivia has a legitimate government elected by the people and should not be disrespected. The author should have used a fictitious nation instead. The good point is Daniel Craig, the best 007 after Sean Connery. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Quantum de Solace" ("Quantum of Solace")
8/10
Quantum of Solace was another very good entry in Ian Fleming's James Bond series
tavm18 November 2008
Having just seen this, the official 22nd James Bond movie in the EON series, I have to say that Quantum of Solace is a very good, if not great worthy entry. Taking place directly after Casino Royale, the action gets going pretty quickly with the car chases followed not long after by some rooftop running and then later on with planes getting bullets. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Daniel Craig is back as Bond with Judi Dench as M who's worried 007 is out for revenge on Vesper Lynd's death considering how he carelessly kills some suspects. Both are good in their comebacks as are Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis and Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter (Interesting note: the only other actor to return as Leiter was Live and Let Die's David Hedison in Licence to Kill). Mathieu Amalric as Greene isn't as creepy a Bond villain as I expected though I was highly amused with the way James dealt with him at the end. The real villain to me seemed to be this General played by Joaquin Cosio whose presence and backstory provided a good reason for Olga Kurylenko's character to avenge her family. And Gemma Arterton as this watchdog (or maybe "watchgirl") for Bond named Fields (you'll have to watch the end credits for her first name) provides some amusement in her few scenes. Those action scenes helmed by Marc Forster are probably too "Bourne"-inspired (i.e. filmed too up-close and edited too quick with shaky camera movements) for traditional 007 fans, though they were entertaining enough for me that I didn't mind. And after reading this was the shortest Bond film on record, well, the movie was certainly long enough. So in summation, Quantum of Solace was another nearly fine entry in the James Bond series.
6/10
Artistic licence to kill
David_Frames31 October 2008
Daniel Craig returns to the role he saved from irrelevance and if we find him in a gloomy place, spare a thought for the blue eyed assassin - that's a dark corner he now shares with the filmmakers as well as the villains.

We have reason to fear Quantum. Their reach extends to the film's editors who are shadow men doing evil work to what you imagine was a fairly exciting thriller. They're complicit in an attempt to make each action sequence as elusive as possible. As an audience you're aware something is happening but it's like being caught in the middle of a bar fight having been glassed in the head from behind. This is maddening, frustrating editing – a Bond movie chewed up and passed through the Bourne Trilogy's celluloid digestive tract. Not even the theme song escapes this butchering. Constructing action this way is tossing money on the fire, necking whisky and urinating on the flames. Each sequence is as furious and cold as Craig's Bond but while this is highly effective as a tool for characterisation, its effect on each set piece is to brutally undermine the line of action, truncating what may have been show stopping moments and robbing them of those beats that fuel anticipation, nervous tension and most crucially, excitement.

The moments in between, where a Bond film breathes and is punctuated with humour, chic and yes, sex, are either mercilessly brief or absent and this makes Quantum of Solace feel slight and uninvolving. Obfuscation is the name of the game this time round but the filmmakers have extended this principle to the story and have confounded us all in the process.

Perhaps this pared down inelegance is what Bond's producers imagine a modern action audience wants, after all the aforementioned Bourne movies have been praised for their crack head cutting and real world brutality. The aesthetic is disorientating, messy but has a visceral punch that shakes up an audience in a way conventional editing struggles to replicate. That's fine of course but Bond's audience expects elegance, refinement and a sense of style, not stylisation that causes a film to eat itself. Solace struggles because it's so involved in machine gunning imagery into its audience that it forgets to entertain them. Consequently you have a strange post-view sensation that there was much that was good in it – Craig, the sumptuous visuals, the expressively mounted action, the Bolivian cab driver – it's just that you struggled to see much of it; it all fell between the gaps in the shots.

A prick tease picture through and through and the first movie to fully replicate the deep seated frustration that results from sexual abstention coupled with a gyrating beauty on your lap but one you can't touch because there's a gun in your mouth; Solace is still preferable to the series parodying itself but Royale showed you can pull this trick better and with greater heft.

A razor across your eyeballs, corneas ripped to shreds, Solace's climax has Bond and Camille, who watched her family burn, huddled as an inferno closes in around them. Teary and terrified she speaks for herself and the audience as shot after shot dies having only enjoyed barely a second of existence – mayfly editing; "not like this, not like this" she tells a battered Bond. Well quite.
5/10
This film missed the mark
distant-mirror3 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
62 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am sorry to say that I felt this film missed the mark. I really enjoyed Casino Royale, though I did not think it was perfect, but after watching Quantum of Solace I appreciate it far more. It's not the lack of one lines, innuendo or the lack of appreciation of the fine things Bond was known for, no the problem with this film was its pacing and at times dreadful editing choices.

I was surprised that a film that boasts a 'character' director could produce a film with such lack of character. Generally you don't get a feel of anyone in this movie, bar the character of Camille, everyone else seems spare and underused and you find you just don't care. Which is exactly how you feel about the action after the first 30 minutes, to the point where it becomes painful for all the wrong reasons. The action is not even as gritty as Casino Royale, instead it feels like Bourne for babies, loads of action with no guts. At least with the action in Casino Royale you felt that the film makers were trying to make a comment on the brutality of Bonds world, a idea from Fleming that Bond is as bad as those he hunts. Sadly this film does not have that, though I really wanted it to.

I certainly did not think I would say this but bring back Martin Campbell for the next one, please. Sorry Mark you missed the mark on this one.

Yesshhh indeed
10/10
A very good continuation of Casino Royal.
Aaron137518 November 2008
Yes, this movie starts off with a very nice car chase scene and is a very action packed James Bond movie. After the nice chase scene to open up the movie you are aware that this movie is picking up where the last movie left off. A nice change of pace for a James Bond movie as this is the first time I know of that this was done so directly. Granted "From Russia With Love" sort of acknowledged the previous movie by mentioning the death of Dr. No and in "Diamonds are Forever" it had Bond going on a revenge kick...this one is the first I know that picks up more like a direct sequel with a continuation in plot. The plot has Bond trying to find out who was behind the set up of Vesper as it seems there is a mysterious organization behind it and they have a member who has a rather different plot that Bond must uncover. You never really get to find out what this organization is, however, I have my suspicions. I think it may be something out of some of the previous Bond movies. So you get lots of action as Bond must chase a guy across the rooftops, interrupt an opera, escape on a boat and plane and have a blazing conclusion in a virtual inferno. Daniel Craig is once again very good as is Judi Dench. It is nice they used characters from the previous movie and the Bond girls in this one are very attractive. However, this movie is somewhat dark as Bond is having trouble coping over the lose of the woman he loved. He tries desperately to make it seem he did not care, and that revenge is not the main driver behind his actions. However, this revenge does not blind him, but rather makes the path more clear to him as he is able to see who the villains are.
3/10
James Bond without James Bond
Austin_Powers-124 March 2009
After the successful rebirth of James Bond in "Casino Royale", the expectations were high to the direct sequel "Quantum of Solace". As a non-stop brainless action film it works out pretty well, but it has NOTHING to do with James Bond.

Daniel Craig has turned James Bond into a cold, raw and very unsympathetic character. Gone is the charm, the style and most important: the Bond spirit. Craig's Bond is so heartless, cruel and vengeful and most of all reminds of a bulldog with rabies. This new style isn't a bad idea, it just isn't James Bond! I am very well aware that we're still in the "birth" of 007, but this doesn't suit the stylish and charming agent.

The 22nd chapter also offers an extremely anonymous and boring villain. Mathieu Amalric struggles against a bad script and does what he can to make the super villain Dominic Greene, with desire of world domination, interesting. The problem is that it never gets clear what he and his organisation is up to, which leaves you with frustrated and confused.

As "Quantum of Solace" is a direct sequel to the great "Casino Royale", a comparison is inevitable. "Casino Royale" also had a raw look, but opposite "Quantum of Solace" it had a bit humour and lots of style, this new Bond film has neither. The story is a big mess and has more loose ends than I ever thought it would be possible to have in a James Bond movie.

All in all the movie feels like a lengthy postlude to a very good film ("Casino Royale"), and if you absolutely want to watch "Quantum of Solace", then make sure to have seen the first film just before, as there are a bunch of references. This new film has an action volume to please the most hungry action fans, and though it is great to look at, it quickly gets boring and uninspiring. I can live without "Shaken not stirred", but I can't see any reason to kill James Bond and take away all the elements which defines this normally delightful agent.
5/10
Widen the shot so we can make sense of what is going on!!!!!!
moviedude116 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond films are KNOWN for their ability to capture great stunts on film, and from the opening gambit, there's a lot of great stunts, but the camera work is filmed from so close up, that the viewer spends more time trying to figure out what they're watching more than trying to enjoy the film, itself. Normally, I spend the money for the DVD because I enjoyed watching it in the theater, but I'll need to spend the money just so I can "get" the plot. In the scene where Bond is fighting one of the bad guys on the ropes, I have to try and keep track of where Bond is and even had to retrace his steps once to make sure it was him who ended up where he is. I'm sorry, but the "reality feel" to this movie is what killed it for me.

As for the plot, itself, I guess he's trying to keep someone from taking over some country's water supply. Before seeing this movie, I heard he was on some vendetta against someone who killed his girlfriend in the last movie. Oh, wait! This is supposed to take place BEFORE the first James Bond movie ever came out (where Sean Connery was nothing but a high class detective for the British government), but I never saw any cell phones in use between 1965 and 1980 (or any of the computers they used, either, for that matter).

I really hate to rip on a movie, especially one where I'm a big fan of the saga, itself. In preparing for this movie, I watched some of the "In-Demand" material on Comcast cable (shameless plug...sorry) and they talked a little about the history of the character, James Bond. One of the points they mentioned was that writers and critics thought the movie line would die once the cold war was over (Judi Dench's character even mentioned in the LAST Bond movie that she "missed the Cold War"), but I think they should have dug that time capsule back up and laid this film to rest next to that idea instead of releasing it in theaters. The critics estimate about $60 million in sales for this movie, but I think that's hoping for a little much...maybe $50 million (10 million for each star I give it...).

5 stars out of 10
1/10
Quantum of Solace?
dankneece18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
41 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really wanted to like Quantum of Solace, but try as I might it just wasn't possible. This film did not work on any level and since I love Bond films and count the days until their release I was very disappointed to find that Quantum of Solace wasn't worth the wait. I would say it's the worst Bond film ever, but I can't because it wasn't really a Bond film at all. It did have James Bond in it, but that's where the similarity ends. The opening sequence was unwatchable with bad cuts coming at me so quickly no information was to be had until the title sequence began. Then there was the awful theme song. I mean, I like the White Stripes and all, but really where's Shirley Bassey when you need her? The rest of the soundtrack isn't any better. Music just seems to be arbitrarily placed to fill up space with no relationship to the scenes at hand. Photographically most of the action sequences are largely out of focus and shot so closely no tension what so ever builds during the entire length of this film. This results in a lack of danger being felt and a separation of the audience from the film itself. You never care about the characters and that is the death of any film. The story is thin and full of holes. Actually there is not much story at all. Seems like the filmmakers got spooked by the Bourne films and tried to make something comparable but just ended up with a washed out watered down version of a bad Bourne film. Sad really. There is one good part. Near the end, for a split second, a small snippet of the original Bond theme is played. That's the only thing about this film worth anything. It is such a bad day for Bond to have this drivel put out to represent what Bond has meant for the last 45 years. As I said earlier, usually I can't wait for the release of next Bond film. During the screening of this disaster I couldn't wait for it to end and release me from the theater. What a painfully sad and irresponsible destruction of the Bond legacy.
1/10
Shaken, not stirred !!!
mailbox9111 November 2008
10 000 cuts movie, or more ? This is by far worst movie of legendary fictional British Secret Service agent James Bond. "Movie" is a big word for this pail of sliced moving still images, story line is blithe and hard to follow. Also missing of that Britishness in the movie that makes James Bond franchise so popular. The dialog is pure exposition, the plot is weak and pointless. There are a few characters that return in Quantum of Solace, but all of them are wasted and play no real role. Stripped of "Royales" humor, elegance and old-school stylishness. This movie is big marketing commercial trick for one phone company. All in all waste of time and money.
107 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Non Bond !!
paulamichelle9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
103 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*Plot Spoilers* but there is very little plot to be given away in this film! I had a hard time with CR and really hoped that QoS would be more Bond but I was to be sadly disappointed! Am I the only person left who likes a good plot, strong characters, gadgets, car chases and romance in a Bond film.....

Daniel Craig is the most heartless Bond I have seen, He does not seem to a loyalty to anyone or his country, He's supposed to be everything thats cool about being a British agent but he was empty and charmless! The scene where Rene Mathis ends up in the boot of the car, gets shot and dies in Bonds arm, then has his money stolen was utterly immoral and unheroic.

Many people have already written about how badly shot and directed QoS was. So I will get to main concern with QoS,

What UPSET and OFFENDED me most was the implied rape scene near the end! This was disgusting and should not be in a Bond film or any film with a 12A rating!! The subplot of sexual assault shocked me. If it has been a 15 or even a 18 I might have expected to see something of this nature in the film. I have a 12 year old niece who would have had nightmares if she'd seen QoS. I think the 12A rating is a complete cop out !!!! QoS to me is a 15 .

I hope is not just me that believes that films are becoming too desensitised, QoS is a plain example of this. I don't think I'll waste time and money seeing any future Bond films. Bring back Pierce Brosnan and his charm and warmth!

To end on a positive, Dame Dudi Dench had the only good line in the film.
1/10
Utter garbage
tom-kludy14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
206 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Save your money. This movie is terrible and has nothing whatsoever to do with the iconic character of James Bond.

Story: 0/10. The main plot was the worst of any Bond movie. Instead of saving the world, Bond is saving the people of a 3rd world country a few pennies on their water bill. Instead of fighting for the good of the free world, Bond is on a heartless revenge killing spree, and the free world is portrayed as almost universally corrupt. But the worst offense is the contrived "explosive hotel" in the middle of nowhere, in the desert. I'll bet they get a lot of tourism there! At least its made of some kind of material that burns without a single trace of smoke... -groan-!

Characters: 1/10. Craig is terrible as bond, he has no charisma whatsoever. He broods for the entire film, never smiling, never delivering that cheeky charm that Bond should. The main Bond girl is a bundle of laughs... no wait, strike that, she's a depressing lump. The CIA girl is actually OK (thus the 1 point) but only sticks around for about 2 minutes before being killed. Felix, instead of being a smart, useful, and funny friend, is a waste of screen time and contributes nothing at all to the story. The villain does not even seem evil, just like a corrupt businessman (FAR from the world-domination-seeking villains of past). The deposed dictator is unbelievable and the implied rape scene at the end should NOT be in a bond film. M is the same as the last few Bond movies, a weak, bleeding-heart "mother" who could not possibly have the respect of MI6 agents in the real world.

Production: 0/10. The action scenes have such short cuts that you can't focus on any of them. The result is utter confusion about who is punching whom. There are obvious and avoidable errors such as cutting between two scenes and the actors have changed positions.

Franchise Loyalty: 0/10. Rename the main character and you would never be able to guess that this is a Bond film. You would probably guess it's a Bourne film. I don't demand the clichés such as "Bond, James Bond" (though you certainly won't find that here). But I do demand that the main character be a likable British guy showing off cool spy gadgets and attacking problems with intelligence rather than always brute force. There were no gadgets-not a single one!-and Bond was a cold-blooded murderer.

This movie would be a below-average effort for a generic action flick. But putting the name "Bond" on it debases and defiles the Bond franchise. Those responsible for this atrocity should be ashamed of what they've done to try to turn a quick buck on a legendary franchise.
6/10
do men still want to be *this* 007?
Quinoa198420 November 2008
One of the longest standing traditions- or if not that at least pleasant clichés- of the 007 franchise has been that James Bond, more or less depending on the actor, is someone women want and men want to be. With the James Bond of the new Daniel Craig variety, women still probably want him (of all people my own mother can't get enough of the "getting-out-of-the-ocean" shot from Casino Royale), but now more than ever with Quantum of Solace I'm not sure what men will want to trade hats with this one. This is the coldest and most ruthless of all of the James Bond portrayals, both in Craig's efficient performance (in his own way he's as interesting an actor as Connery if on the opposite end of the spectrum) and in the treatment in the "serious" action-movie tone, and while Bond has always killed first and asked questions later this time one feels no guilty-pleasure fun in Bond's fights and deathly encounters.

Matter of fact, even more-so than Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace feels more like a slick and (sometimes) precisely oiled action-movie machine and less like the "fun" days of Bond from his early years. This is a conscious decision to try new things, which is fine, but there's a sort of disassociation I felt to the film from time to time, that without so much as a shred of any real fun to the piece (and do try to distinguish between fun and camp, it's the difference between many Bond adventures) it goes on and on with its one-time-only sequel structure to Casino Royale holding only so much water. The kicker is that after so much time spent in a "realistic" Bond world, which is a little like a cousin of the Bourne series at this point (I'm not the first to point to this but it's an obvious point worth making), the climax comes around to what appears to be a standard Bond-type over-the-top setting: a hotel in the middle of the desert built, perhaps, for the simple reason of burning it to the ground by the end. Uh-huh.

But all of this gripping doesn't mean the picture doesn't have some entertainment value or things worthwhile about it. As said, Craig is a solid 'serious' Bond just as Christian Bale is a solid 'serious' Bruce Wayne/Batman. I also loved seeing French character actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Diving Bell & Butterfly) playing the villain Dominic Greene; he's built perfectly to play any villain, and in this instance her fits in wonderfully. It's only a shame he takes up more screen time than mostly wooden Olga Kurylenko.

And yet for all of the mild joys of watching any Bond picture, the direction of the picture does start to wear down on a viewer not ready for its Eisenstein-on-crack editing values. Marc Forster, for all of his talents in directing an interesting cast (Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright also have small parts), is terrible with most of the action scenes. So much of it whizzes by, cranked to 11 with its cuts creating the effect of whiplash. Some may find this perfectly intense, which is fine. Personally, I pined for some of the more 'static' action sequences of old-school Bond - even Campbell's Casino Royale, which handled another similar level of intensity far more effectively.

So, 007 will continue on with its latest and bravest of the Bonds, and the plots will continue to get further crazier and possibly even colder and cranked past 11. All well and good. Just don't expect anything too amazing.
1/10
Worst Bond film EVER! more rubbish than Never Say Never Again!
MrVWspotter4 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
144 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This has to be THE worst bond film of all time! Right from the opening scene, which is traditionally an action packed opening to blow you away, was awful. It's fast paced action was lost by a camera set too close to the action and flicking between camera shots so fast it was subliminal and far to fast for the human brain to register any action. After a few seconds I was totally lost, as was everyone else I spoke too.

This style continued throughout any action scene in the film, making them unwatchable and irritating. The fight scene in the theatre was lost, again too much flicking between camera shots. Yes it's great that modern cameras can get you "into the action" but there is such a thing as moving in too close and loosing all perspective of action.

I love Bond films, but a Bond film needs to have, Gadgets, Fast cars, witty comments, good music, ( Sorry Jack White ) Q and a baddie with another baddie above him and one above him! Daniel Craig is a good Bond, but give him the script to make him great.
Discrete Movements
tedg28 November 2008
In a way, this is disappointing. Its seems to have simply taken from the Bond story grab bag, giving us nothing new. Last time had that amazing opening chase sequence. And to my mind a novel spectacle at the end. This has nothing like that. It also lacks the grit and pain of the first; we are back to a glossy magazine of spyworld, not its catacombs. Unfortunately, I just have seen "The Fall," and it is unlikely that a different "around the world" could impress me.

But it has something endearing in the editing. The shots of the action scenes are along the lines of what we saw in "Transformers" where the camera does not fully show us the action. This is an experiment, I think, and may fade, Also this is greatly toned down, but it is edited so expertly that it has a greater sustained effect.

One sequence in particular is worth the price. It is near the beginning and finishes a rather boring chase. There are collapsing scaffolds and swinging gantries. The setup is not so original, but the way it is shot and edited is. It must have been done by a second crew, because it stands out in tone as unique, extreme.

We have our office redhead back. That's a big deal. But although I prefer a Bond without extreme gadgets, it just lacks something without Q. I wonder when we are going to have some actually interesting narrative structure. Other action movies, the good ones, do.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
3/10
Big budget action film without a good storyline
Thorsten-Krings14 October 2009
Maybe one should just accept the fact that the Bond franchise has really outlived itself and is dead. maybe it was no longer fitting for our times. What we see here has nothing to do with the Bond films of the past. This owes more to run of the mill action films where CGIs and action sequences are a substitute for characters and a story. That is exactly my first point about this film. It starts off with a action scene and continues that way and about 30 minutes into the film I had actually forgotten what it was all about. I simply lost interest. That is also partly due to the fact that the directing is extremely fast paced and hectic. It's not a coincidence the QOS is the shortest Bond film ever. Craig would make a great Mike Hammer but he is no James Bond. His Bond lacks the sophistication and the wit of the film Bond who of course owes more to Macnee's Steed and Moore's Simon Templar than to Fleming's Bond. However, the ideology is quite perverse, the end justifies the means. maybe that is just the right film in times of Guantanamo. But essentially everything that was fun and playful about the Bond films is gone. So all in all, I think this is your typical big budget action film without a good storyline and interesting characters.
2/10
The Producers Should Read These Reviews
anthony_retford17 January 2009
This just was not a Bond film. It was about, as another reviewer wrote, a thug cold-bloodily killing anyone and everyone. Gone is the essence of Bond. Craig does not have the charisma of a Bond. So OK, Casino Royale had the makings of Bond but this movie has abandoned its essential core. I am sure many viewers will lose interest and their loyalty to this series if the producers continue with this awful theme. Surely in this time of greedy multinationals someone could come up with a story about a cabal intending to steal space rights, or asteroid mining deals. I saw many references to the Bourne franchise, which seems to have gotten it right, although the movies bear no relation to the books. Now if they would insist the writers read the actual Bond books maybe we could return to what works.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Edited together by a monkey on amphetamines.
sixbells9920 March 2009
You might have considered it an inspired choice to hire a director of the calibre of Marc Forster, with real pedigree to his name. Films such as the emotional and touching Kite Runner showed that the Bond produces had hired no journey man or executive poodle; this was a director who cared about films. But if this film demonstrates nothing else it shows that directors of one genre no matter how good do not automatically translate to be good directors in other genres.

The direction is truly dreadful; the manic almost random editing of scenes made me feel genuinely sick and gave me a headache for the rest of the evening. Put simply this director did not know how to direct. He had no idea how to create suspense and pace or develop a narrative the audience could follow. Instead we are left with fragmented plot lines, scenes jumping from one to the other so random that you feel that the cinema projector must had missed a reel.

What Casino Royal did to revive Bond, Quantum in equal measure did to bury it again. Casino gave us a director, who understood the craft of action films, developing a kinetic post modern Bond seeping with class. Quantum is mess; it makes no sense and seems to have been edited together by a monkey on amphetamines. The worse bond ever, no question, no debate; Bond will need another resurrection after this film, but will it work twice?
5/10
Disappointing to say the least
adrian29035715 November 2008
Banal intro; banal music; stylized and uninvolving action sequences; no real mean villain; and several lost threads in the story. Daniel Craig is still very good, as is Judy Dench, but this is a Bond movie breaking with many traditions. Bond breaks from his shaken, not stirred Martini, from dropping his name, and from a sense of humor (though the sequence where he picks Mathis' wallet is exceptional in terms of dark comedy). As anyone will tell you revenge is pointless -- nor can it be anything else in a Bond movie or the censors will wield the big scissors -- so in the end this is also a pointless movie and one that feels oddly dishonest. Water and oil really do not mix, especially in the desert.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I'm glad I'm not given to epileptic seizures...
innocuous4 December 2008
When are film-goers going to get a break from this silly shaky-cam school of shooting and editing action sequences? The cuts are so fast and so jumpy that I swear I should be on the ground with a rolled magazine between my teeth to keep me from biting my tongue. Once, directors and editors took pride in making as few cuts as possible in action sequences, or they went out of their way to hide the cuts. This enhances the credibility of the scene substantially, as well as providing suspense for the viewer, since he/she has a good "feel" for the situation in which the protagonist finds him/herself. This approach has apparently been totally canned recently.

Overall, this is not a really bad action movie (on the order of, say, "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull) but it is not a good action movie. It is, however, a very bad James Bond movie.

Not recommended.
2/10
Bond, Lame bond
n-amritha9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
40 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was sorely disappointed, from the opening sequence which seemed like a first year animation students shot at being retro to the fact that there is not even one funny " before killing" lines or even any great dialog with the two forgettable women. And Bond sleeps with only one of them!!! Unforgivable. The action sequences were great but then thats expected, no gadgets except a mobile phone and a plot that's just a lot of pure nonsense. Im sure given a better script Daniel Craig is capable of much more.

Please bring back the politically incorrect and corny dialog mouthing 007.
6/10
It'd be a pretty cold ba***rd who didn't want revenge for the death of someone he loved.
one9eighty27 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Released in 2008, Daniel Craig returns as James Bond for the second time, in the 22nd official film outing for the character created by Sir Ian Fleming.

This film picks up straight after the events that ended "Casino Royale", with Bond capturing Mr White and returning him to M for interrogation about a mysterious organisation called Quantum. One of M's bodyguards is a double agent and attacks M, allowing White to escape, but Bond deals with the bodyguard. Bond and M discover that he had a contact in Haiti, Edmund Slate who is a hitman that is hunting Camile Montes, on the orders of entrepreneur Dominic Greene. Camille in turn is hunting General Medrano for killing her family. Greene is assisting the General to overthrow the government, in exchange for expanse of barren space in the desert, so having Camille interfering would be bad for business. Bond rescues Camille from General Medrano and follows Greene to Austria where he plans to do a deal with members of Quantum. Bond infiltrates the meeting, which is taking place at an open-air Opera, but he is attacked. Bond kills one of his attackers, throwing him off a roof. This doesn't go down well as the CIA have signed an none-interference deal for stock in Bolivian oil, and also because the victim was a Special Branch body guard working for Quantum member Guy Haines, who is an advisor to the British Prime Minister. M has no choice but to revoke Bond's passport and credit cards. Bond goes to meet Rene Mathis in Italy for help, and this eventually takes him Bolivia. Bond is intercepted by an agent call Strawberry Fields who insists that Bond return to London to debrief, but he seduces her instead and decides to stay in Bolivia. At a party Bond once again rescues Camille from Green/ Medrano. On leaving the party to look at some plans for the Tierra project that Camille has, they are stopped by local police that have been paid off by Greene/Medrano, who find Mathis in the boot of the car beaten and bloody. Mathis is duly executed, and with his dying words he tells Bond to forgive him and Vesper (see Casino Royale) for everything that happened previously. Bond and Camille decide to check out the land that Quantum want in the desert but are shot down and end up in a massive sink hole in the desert. Here they discover the evil plot; the fresh water supply is being kept away from the populous to monopolise it. Returning to La Paz, Bond meets M who informs him that Strawberry Fields was found dead, drown in crude oil. Bond also meets CIA agent Felix Leiter who is supposed to be capturing Bond, but instead secretly tips him off about Greene and Medrano's meeting in the Atacama Desert. Bond and Camille head to an eco-hotel in the Atacama Desert where they seek vengeance against Greene/Medrano. Bond takes the opportunity to kill the chief of police who had Mathis executed while Camille goes after General Medrano for killing her family. Bond captures Greene, interrogates him, and then dumps him in the middle of the desert with only a can of crude oil for liquid. With the new information about Quantum, Bond travels to Russia to find Vesper Lynd's former lover, Kabira, a member of Quantum himself, who seduces women with valuable connections. Bond tells the latest target, a Canadian Intelligence agent about Kabira's intentions, sparing her from the same fate as Vesper, and then he leaves. MI6 arrest Kabira and when meeting up with M again, she tells Bond that Greene died in the desert having drunk the engine oil.

This Bond film was developed while the previous one ("Casino Royale") was still being made, which makes sense as it carries across a lot of the hidden plot from the first film. Michael G Wilson, Daniel Craig and Marc Forster wrote some sections of the film themselves due to a writer's strike, but ultimately, it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade who are credited with the writing on QOS. Marc Forster took his place in the director's chair to lead the film, with Wilson going back into the producer's chair alongside Barbara Broccoli. David Arnold once again takes up the credit of music, which makes it his fifth outing in that department on a Bond film. With a budget believed to be somewhere in the region of $225 million, this film did well and grossed nearly $600 million at the global box office. The runtime here though is the shortest in all of the Bond franchise, topping out at 106 minutes end to end.

After the success of Daniel Craig's first outing in the rebooted franchise, he was able to come at this film with less of a backlash. He made a conscious decision to get fitter because of the demands of the film would be higher, unlike the more relaxed feel of "Casino Royale". He delivers another top class and authentic performance. He is gritty and explosive, while being debonair and cool at times. He brings an air of anger and pain into his performance, which was motivated by the characters loss in the previous film. While on the surface he is able to adapt to all the situations he finds himself in, Craig's eyes are the true gateway to his performance, easily giving away the portrayal that he is aiming for; they are almost glazed and cold when he has to deliver a bullet to a foe, but they are kind and caring when he has to console friends. Opposite Craig and featuring heavily in the film is Olga Kurlenko as Camille Montes, a Bolivian agent who is hunting General Medrano with a vendetta. Although she is Ukrainian, she carries herself off well as Hispanic, never letting up at any point to deceive her role. She is engaging and tough and does well in every scene she is in.

Mathieu Amalric plays Dominic Greene, the main villain of the piece. He is deceivingly good as the bad guy, but probably will not be remembered that long as he plays the baddie as a relatively normal person. He is not disfigured in any way like previous Bond villains. The beauty in his performance is that he could be an anybody that is corrupt on the inside rather than disfigured on the outside. He comes across a typical entrepreneur or politician, which makes him more of a threat in my eyes, on more real to the world we live in.

Also cast in the movie are Judie Dench who returns as Bond's boss M. Jeffrey Wright reprises his role as CIA operative and long-time friend of Bond, Felix Leiter. Giancarlo Giannini returns as Rene Mathis.

Coming off the back off "Casino Royale" this film feels like a complete change of pace. It is fast, it is brutal, and it is angry. The film retains a lot of the glitz and glamour you expect to see in a Bond film, especially with its locations and events, but it also feels rawer and dirtier in places too. This feels like a nice touch and embeds the film in some reality, which is a million miles away from previous films like "Moonraker". It was noted that this film features at least 250 "trivial or severely violent" acts, making it one of the more nastier titles in the franchise, especially when you consider that it's got the shortest runtime in the franchise universe, and when you realize that "Dr No" had 109 acts of violence in it. I enjoyed the film and enjoyed the direction it went in after the more reserved film that preceded it. As it is based on an original concept by producer Michael G Wilson, I cannot compare it to anything that has come before it in literature form. The main negative from me is that there is a lot packed into the film and sometimes it can be a bit overbearing and confusing. It goes from one place to another in quick succession, things are not really slowed down to explain in detail to its audience, and some of the action is edited in a way that makes it choppy and difficult to watch. Despite that it is nice to watch Bond emotionally disconnected from the world due to his inner turmoil and pain, yet still focussed on doing the right thing for Queen and country, and in fact the entire world.

If you are a fan of Bond films this is a must. If you enjoy action and espionage films this is also a good go-to movie. Be prepared for a fast paced, adrenaline filled, and violent action film and you will surely come away from this with a barrel of enjoyment.

In terms of Bond films this is a 7 out of 10. In terms of movies in the long and illustrious history of film I would give this a 6 out of 10.
7/10
Riveting Craig, Great Action Make Up for Uneven Plotting & Characterization
dtb27 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In his second James Bond film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE (QoS), the riveting Daniel Craig again proves he's the most ruthless 007 since Sean Connery, blasting the Bond formula with a breath of fresh air -- that is, when he and the cast can catch their breath between great rock'em-sock'em action scenes that wouldn't be out of place in the BOURNE movies (no surprise, since some of the BOURNE personnel were on board)! Although director Marc Forster effectively films all of QoS's running, jumping, and doing, I would have liked the movie even more if the plotting and characterization had gotten as much screen time as the frenzied action sequences, like the excellent CASINO ROYALE. (I know I'm dating myself here, but it's still hard for me to invoke the title "CASINO ROYALE" without thinking of the 1967 comedy version. :-) But I digress...) I do hope the next Bond film has a better balance of action, plot, characterization and emotion, otherwise we might as well be watching a video game. I liked the stern yet warm-beneath-the-surface, almost mother-son relationship that Craig's Bond and Dame Judi Dench's M are developing (Bond wryly acknowledges this in a throwaway line). I also liked Olga Kurylenko as Bond's revenge-minded main love interest, Camille; she's one of the few good-guy Bond girls who can take care of herself instead of "Oh, James!"-ing all over the place. I wish they'd made better use of the winsome Gemma Arterton, though; she deserved to do more than just invoke GOLDFINGER. Heck, with all the running around the characters did on screen, I didn't even realize Ms. Fields' first name was Strawberry until I saw it in the closing credits! I wish they'd done more with Arterton's character, but at least she got endearingly naked with Bond. Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright return and are most welcome, although Wright still doesn't get as much to do in the role of Felix Leiter as he should. Ah, well, now that Bond has avenged his beloved Vesper's death and gotten the dying-of-thirst Dominic Greene (reminiscent of his MUNICH character) to drink oil, maybe the next Bond film can concentrate on new plots and scenarios with a better balance of all the elements that make 007 fun to watch, and they'll let Daniel Craig crack a smile -- or at least a cool, knowing smirk -- more often. :-)
6/10
Bourne. Jason Bourne.
diac22817 November 2008
Bond. James Bond.

Not in this movie.

Shaken, not stirred.

Also not in this movie.

What kind of Bond movie lacks those two quotes? A Bond movie that is trying so hard to deviate itself from previous Bonds, that it nearly loses its identity. Quantum of Solace is an action-packed thriller that slows down in the third act, and to make it worse we don't have the sophistication or charisma of James Bond to hold us over before the climax. We don't even have the amazing Bond girl that oozes sexuality and chemistry with our main star. Argue all you want about the plot line, references to previous Bonds, and so-called direction the franchise is transitioning to; this isn't a James Bond movie and even as an action flick it's not one to totally scream about either. The original idea was to revitalize the series and give it a fresh new start; but we wind up seeing a film that closely resembles that of the Bourne franchise.

Becoming technically the first true Bond sequel, Quantum is about Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to stop an environmentalist from taking over natural resources while at the same time secretly seek vengeance for the death of his love in Casino Royale. In the meantime, "M" (Judi Dench) is still having her issues with Bond as he continues to defy the rules and continues causing more problems than solving them. The adventure takes our hero through parts of Spain, Haiti, Italy, Austria, among other locations. With a script fleshed out by Academy Award winner Paul Haggis among other writers, they waste no time in engaging the audience in action scene after action scene. By the end of the first act, we would have experienced two fights, one shootout, and two chases. The first act isn't the problem though; it's the rest of the movie.

The first act looks a lot like Bourne Ultimatum; shaky-cam nice and present, insane editing, crazy amounts of close-up shots, and raw, relentless, intense action. The action itself is impressive, especially with the on-foot chase that nearly topples that of Casino Royale. The stunt team of Ultimatum makes an appearance here, but their work probably isn't going to win them Oscars like the 2007 blockbuster. Daniel Craig continues proving that he's the best Bond in terms of physical ability and fight skills, as he can deliver brutal hit after brutal hit without cracking a smirk. His Bond continues to resemble that of the stories and Timothy Dalton; cold, calculating, and without much of a sense of humor. But Craig's Bond still lacks the sophistication and suave that previous counterparts contained, especially Connery and Moore. The rest of the cast did decent job acting, with special mention to Judi Dench as she remains the only carryover from the Brosnan days.

The second and third acts is where the problems amount. The Bond girls in the movie? They barely qualify. The main villain? Not as entertaining as the average Bond villain. Supporting cast? We don't have that many colorful characters in this grim flick. Crazy plot line? Not quite crazy, a bit down-to-earth actually. So what are we depending on for entertainment as the final climatic battle sets up? James Bond? Not this time, because he's still bitter, still bickering, doesn't talk much, isn't smooth, remains cold as ice, and just resembles more the troubled Jason Bourne than a James Bond. There are way too many similarities to the Bourne franchises in terms of themes and content.

Then the final action scene actually underwhelms and comes by too fast, especially when the previous action sequences were so well-staged. Mark Forster also has this knack of telling more than showing; as we have many instances in which events happen, but you don't see them happen, you are told they happened. For the sake of spoilers, I shall not reveal them, but the running time of this movie is much shorter simply because dialogue replaces action in a few instances. Even the ending of Quantum resembles that of a Bourne movie (Supremacy in this case), in which Bond faces a demon of his past in order to be able to move on with his life.

Bottom Line: The James Bond franchise was (yes, was) escapist cinema, pure and simple. Emotion and realism was replaced with outlandish villains, lush environments, hot babes with clever names, cool gadgets, and a main character that defines dangerous sophistication. For decades (with minimal exceptions) it has been this way, and the formula worked for the most part. Quantum of Solace contains absolutely none of this, as they morphed the franchise into a similar series of intense spy movies with cold main characters seeking closure and vengeance because of the past. This isn't Bond, and topping Bourne isn't going to happen unless you can draw out elements from the classics. Yes, Die Another Day was a signal that we needed a change, but is this really what's best for Bond? Turning him from a lovable hero into a torn individual that could kill?

Even the running time is condensing to match the mainstream; and because of this the movie suffers even more. There was amazing scenery, but we saw little of it because Bond was running amok. The villain was lightly interesting, but could have been more if he had actually gotten more screen time. There's plenty of complaining here, but this is a cinema fan seeing another beloved franchise growing serious and moody and forgetting the reason we came to see their films in the first place: to escape real life. Just like recent Batmans, they had forgotten to include the fun. Casino Royale/Daniel Craig Bond fans however shouldn't be disappointed, but if you are waiting for a big change, it's not happening here. This movie isn't a ridiculous disaster, but could have been much more, and is spiraling Bond towards a path I personally don't like.
1/10
Skip this one, save your money, you'll do yourself a big favour
vanderveldenton11 November 2008
I have seen ALL James Bonds in the cinema (I am old enough for that), but James Bond is dead. This guy that plays him now has nothing to do with him. James Bond movies were always highly entertaining. You knew that you were in for a ride and sitting at the edge of your seat to see how the villains were beaten and the world saved. The strangest thing is that these are prequels, stories at the beginning of James Bond's career. With this guy I am never going to believe I am watching a James Bond movie. May be the next one who plays him will bring back my joy. I could not care less what was going on in this movie and how it would end. I never liked the Die Hard series much but they are endlessly better than this sad attempt to completely ruin the memory of James Bond. For once I have to advice to keep your money and skip this worthless story and wait till the next James Bond to see if the producers have any intention to truly entertain the audience again. Outlining the "plot" is senseless, there is no plot, just some guy killing a few people and a Judy Dench who thinks she is playing in a James Bond movie but who has also lost her mind, that's all. Biggest disappointment in my long life as a movie-goer.
1/10
Quantum of SoLame!!!!
tghood155 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Is this the end of Bond? I have been a die-hard bond fan for years, even forgiving the Timothy Dalton years, but this was just plain awful. I should have known it would be bad as soon as I heard the theme song! Rap for a Bond song PLEASE!!!! Casino Royale was great and really set itself up for a great sequel, but instead we get two hours of mindless chases and a James Bond that has no idea what he is doing. The plot for this movie was supposed to be simple. Bond goes after the guys that killed Vespa. So the writers set up this great shadow syndicate plot, but too bad we will never know who they are because this movie goes nowhere and explains nothing. To sum up, Bond fans stay away from this one and lets hope they can save the franchise. Hollywood has finally done it they made Bond hip enough for everybody and by doing so destroyed an era. Bring back Pierce!!!!
1/10
Fiasco again and again
JconsultJC17 February 2010
I used to be a fan and loved James Bond's films until they brought in this "actor", Daniel Craig, whose acting could be summed up to brute force.

I remember when the gentlemen like Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore used to perform in these wonderful and quite enjoyable films. Now the last two James Bond are pales images of what used to be an event. Casino Royale already showed the way with a brand new James Bond full of muscles and lacking brain. As for Quantum of Solace, it turned to be a copy of transporter 2 or Max Payne.

When do the producers intend to find a real actor personifying properly this character? But alas, they have already in the pipe the coming "Bond 23" and two more films with the same actor.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond after Bond
RResende19 December 2008
I've always followed the Bond series in my film life. First by tracing the old ones, and than by following the Brosnan flicks as they got out, and now watching these new Craig phase. The Bond franchising, for the options it always took, stylistic and commercial, as well as for the longevity it has by now, is perfect for us to trace how the notions of action for grand masses tastes have evolved. The Bond films probably never invented the notions which wrapped all the films, instead they've always stick to the popular conventions in its moment. Sometimes, though, they created great films in their own moment. So, someone interested in 'archeaolgy' of action films, will necessary have to go through the Bond films, and maybe intersect them with important groundbreaking films (from North by Northwest to the Bourne franchise).

This film clearly corresponds to what i described above. It is an action film fully in the mood of what action-film goers seek these days. The roughness and cruelty in the fights (a certain 'realism'), the editing as a confusing yet engaging element, which does not allow us to see the whole thing from the outside, instead brings us closer to the film. The inner depths of the main characters matter these days, and so we have Bond finding himself.

We have all that here. Is it competently done? To my eyes, yes. Is it enough for the film to be 'good'? To the same eyes, no.

Why? The whole Bond series is so diverse in terms of the stylistic approach, personality of the Bond actor, political and social context of that moment's 'real' world, that all the films would sound just disconnected if it wasn't for something that would bind them together. That thing was the elements of the character, Bond, and the surrounding elements that would support the whole constant mood of the thing (the gadgets, Q, the girls, the globe trotting stories...). In Casino Royale those elements were absent or distorted, and that was OK because the film was about digging and (re)inventing those elements, something like what 'Batman Begins' had done the year before. So we played along that game, wanting to find out. Bond was visceral, unsophisticated, but finding himself. No decided step forward was taken in this film. It lingers between the Bond film we know will come, with the 'real' Bond everybody knows, and the previous Casino Royale where we accepted the roughness of the character as part of a process. There could have been a transition, but i should have felt that something had evolved from 'casino..' to this one. I didn't.

My opinion: 3/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
1/10
Booo! Hiss!
boomer16628 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
37 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For me this has to be the worst Bond movie ever.

Who was the villain? Who was the villain's number one henchman? What was the plot about? Oil, no, water, no, oil.

Too bad the writers of this movie didn't perish in the Bolivian desert, before they completed the script.

Too many special effects, not enough ( any ) character development, and why the dead woman, covered in oil, on the bed, a la Goldfinger.

Geez, I would even welcome back Roger Moore, and some of the script writers from those substandard episodes. At least they were humorous.

A very sad attempt in this latest installment of the franchise.
1/10
"Quantum of Mess"
victoriaseychelles21 November 2008
The worst James Bond director of all time, with "Casino Royale" martin Campell made a classic James Bond and with "QOS" mark Foster destroyed everything. But seriously the editing is so poor you can never figure out what is happening it is like watching "Blair witch project". So much money spent on traveling to exotic locations but the viewer has no chance to enjoy the scenes are cut so fast that you never get the chance to see anything.Seriously did the studio exec viewed the movie before release as I don't know who gave the green light to release the movie , he should be replaced.

But it is with great sadness I had to say this, but it is a total MESS. Please get Martin Campell or someone who is experienced in directing action movies for the next Bond movie. I still have faith in the bond character and with the right script and DIRECTOR it can be a total entertainment for movie goers.
36 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
No solace in this.
OllieSuave-00717 February 2014
This is Daniel Craig's second outing as James Bond, where he tries to stop a mysterious organization from eliminating a country's most valuable resource, while trying to avenge his love interest's death.

Aside from some exciting action scenes, albeit some over-the-top ones including lots of chases, this film is basically is just an action flick with a poor storyline and an uneven plot. Most of the elements that define a 007 film is missing, like Bond's one-liners, his gadgets, MI6, etc.

Gone are the suaveness and witty humor of Bond, and what we have is just an angry-looking agent who seemed mad at the entire world.

Overall, one of the least intriguing Bond films. I would stick to the pre-Daniel Craig movies.

Grade D+
5/10
My least favorite Bond movie
pmtelefon29 February 2020
I am a huge 007 fan. I believe that old joke about there not being any bad version of pizza the same way I look at James Bond movies. There's no such thing as a bad one. That said, "Quantum of Solace" comes close. It has a weak story, a great villain trapped in the wrong movie and (forgive me) too much action. It's dizzying at times. On the plus side, this is a beautiful movie to look at. The location photography is often stunning. I especially liked watching the scenes shot in Haiti. I watch a lot of movies but I can't think of any movie that showed me more of that country than this one does. I did kind of enjoy watching "Quantum of Solace" tonight. It's not a good movie but I don't hate it as much as I used to. Dishonorable mention: the always annoying Judi Dench. Do we really need to see M putting on cold cream?
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Literally unwatchable, just a proof of what entertainment tends to become as we go along
leo-pontinen23 September 2010
Of course, we should not give this movie too much credit. Our beloved James Bond -francise has been dying since the input of the modern action style. This one was just sucking the remains. Bond-movies were about excessive stories and survival. That enjoyable B-class is gone for good. Updating James Bond was unavoidable but destructive.

The movie had common problems. First of all, James Bond and the characters around him were dry and cliché. Their pretentious behavior worked as a repellent. The realistic story had no charm or interest. As said before, the exaggerated plot and situations were the cream of the franchise. Putting something completely normal and credible was the kiss of death for Quantum of Solace.

The worst thing, however, was the use of camera and editing. Every time when something "exciting" was going on, the camera spun like in a tornado and the shots were cluttered and edited so short that my brain couldn't process anything. I couldn't see what was going on and, eventually, gained a headache.

Witnessing a movie that is boring, pretentious and a source of physical pain is something I recommend avoiding and hating.
5/10
Not Bond
ajraistrick11 November 2008
Casion Royal left us with a glimmer of the old bond returning to out screens. How wrong we were to be misled by this.

This was an out and out action movie. Bond has lost his charm, his wit, his gadgets, his humanity. While I was prepared for a darker Bond, this new bond was really just a thug with 00 license.

The story was weak and the villain was neither scary nor evil.

The action scenes were filmed in a very choppy manner which made them hard to follow.

There was no suspense.

This was a poor sequel to Casino Royal.

The franchise needs to pull it together, or it will lose it's audience
3/10
Why did anyone expect it to be good?
iKramerica-115 November 2008
Honestly, anyone expecting this to be a true Bond film or even a good film hasn't been paying attention.

The main talent is just not right for this franchise.

Director: Forster, with no experience in this type of film, in this genre, with very grim material to his name. He is NOT the right man to direct this franchise. Writer: Paul Haggis, who has an equally grim view of humanity. A scientologist with the typical view that mankind is unredeemable, that no "unsaved" person is worth anything, it permeates all his recent work. Writer: Purvis, Wade, just not very good writers. Craig: no charm. Bond has charm. Craig is not bond.

I was hoping that Casino Royale was a precursor to the right Bond. The end of the film seemed to introduce the Bond we knew in some of the films, like the early Connery and early Moore films where he wasn't so smarmy.

But I guess not, as they just took this into the wrong place. I don't like the Bourne movies because they stray from the books and are frenetic, and Bond is now even MORE frenetic and strays MORE from the concept.

Bond is supposed to be part spy, part action hero, part Columbo, part Don Juan. The powers that be are completely neglecting the second two parts of his character. Like Columbo, Bond always put himself into the belly of the beast and annoyed the crap out of his opponent, finally defeating him with by turning his own mechanisms against him. This new bond doesn't do that. And Bond also got himself into trouble by having an uncontrollable libido. This Bond doesn't do that, either.

Without those last two parts, the spy/action hero becomes generic. Like Bourne, or any other number of forgettable characters. He has not likability, no soul.

Oh well. This movie will make a lot of money, but it's just not James Bond anymore...
7/10
A Nutshell Review: Quantum of Solace
DICK STEEL5 November 2008
So shall we start off with the Bond, and un-Bond like moments? We return to the formula of having the film start off with a bang with an action sequence. However, an extended car chase isn't exactly exciting to begin with, even though it's now a norm for Craig's Bond to demolish his very expensive Aston Martin within a few minutes of driving it on screen. Yes, for the car's aficionados, you'll wince at how the vehicle gets trashed left right and center. Besides the car, the lack of a quartermaster continues, so we don't get treated to any fanciful, futuristic gadgets besides a rather functional tracking device.

The stylistic opening credit song sequence with silhouette girls dancing got kept, though I did not enjoy Alicia Keys and Jack White's main theme "Another Way to Die", which I felt was one of the weakest Bond themes around. What of the gun barrel? If I'm not wrong, this is the first time it gets thrown to the end of the film, though this time round Craig does the proper walk-turn-shoot sequence versus the rather improvised one which was featured in his first film.

And what of Bond himself? He's still continuing with his fisticuffs, preferring to get down and dirty in the thick of the action, speaking with his fists rather than with his one-liners, which I think we can forget about with Craig in the role now. Gone are the innuendos of course, as our Bond prefers straight, to the point talk. Still lacking in finesse, he still finds it liberating to finish off opponents much to MI6's abhorrence. He's beginning to develop his taste for Martinis here (versus his do I give a damn in Casino Royale), and also his deliberate living it up on MI6's expense. With few friends and plenty of enemies, this rookie Bond continues to charge ahead like a bull in a China shop, bulldozing people and property along the way.

But the weakest link of the film, and I hope it doesn't continue to plague Craig's Bond, is the villain. Granted it had very grey characters rather than the downright evil boss and his henchmen types, and some rather nice digs at incompetence or double crossings with other spy agencies like the CIA, essentially the villains' lack of over-the-top ambition in threatening the world, made them look like small gangs operating for small gains instead. The QUantum, an organization that is reputed to be everywhere, plays along its self-fulfilling prophecy that nobody has heard of, thus the audience never get to see how diabolical it can get, nor see anything beyond its intention to hoard water, the new oil in today's world. Bond fighting an environmentalist? Sounds boring, right? OK, so it ranks up there with his battling a corrupt media mogul in Tomorrow Never Dies.

The Bond girls seem to have taken a leaf from that same movie too, with the similarities too difficult not to note. Put Gemma Arterton's Strawberry Fields into Teri Hatcher's shoes as the only girl Bond beds in this film, being nothing much better than a flower vase. And surprise folks, Olga Kurylenko doesn't drop her clothes here, as her Camille steps into the shoes of Michelle Yeoh with some action sequences dedicated to her, and the Bond girl that James Bond does not bother to touch. Guess he's still beginning to realize he can milk his charm to have the girls at his disposal do things for him, so if this is early in his career, then naturally he hasn't gotten onto his Casanova player role yet. And there's a nice little homage to Goldfinger too, since oil is the new gold.

Director Marc Forster seemed to lack the knack for directing action sequences though, with everything in quick edits and delivered in a blur, that it's hard to make out who's Bond, who's not, that you just switch off and consider two stuntmen taking potshots at each other. The story as scribed by the Casino Royale team of Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade also lacked some real, credible threat and urgency, and as mentioned, the villain of Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) is as weak as, if not weaker than Le Chiffre. Lacking a distinct and strong finale, the saving grace in the plot would be sub-elements like how the teething relationship between Bond and Judi Dench's M continues to build with the development of trust, as well as the return of limited allies whom we're likely to see feature in future Bond films.

I think James Bond as a character and as a film continuing the franchise is still finding and establishing its identity in the wake of Jason Bourne, and it might take another film to finally get that clear before Craig completes his contracted fourth film outing as the cinematic world's most famous spy. Until then, Quantum of Solace would be classified as the piece that still has Bond groping
6/10
First Bond Sequel - Might Be Last One
DKosty12323 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the great Casino Royale script, this film is quite a let down. Part of that has to do with Mark Forester as directing only his 7th film. While he attempts to redefine the action of Bond in this more active sequel for Royale, his action sequences are often rough and choppy. There are several noticeable times in the movie where it seems everything just stops and then restarts after a jump in time (and sequence).

While two of the writers wrote this and Casino Royale, it is quite obvious that the script is not as strong here as in the last film. Action dominates this one and really it pulls this down in quality compared with Craig's first outing. The last one had more Ian Fleming in the writing.

There is a 35 year reminder of Goldfinger with a femme fa-tale killing of a woman coated with Oil instead of Gold, supposedly symbolic of the world oil shortage going on today. The action while hard and fast throughout the film just isn't quite up to other Bond films in the series.

Daniel Craig at 5 feet 10 inches is shorter than many Bonds which means he sees more eye to ey with more women than previous Bonds. There is less sex in this film than others in the series too. This film at less than 2 hours is one of the shortest films of the entire series.

The opening sequence is a car chase in which Bond brings villain in to M. Then M and Bond find out there is a secret organization which is inside of every agency including the British Secret Service. It is this organization Bond pursues the rest of the film including getting even with the guy who killed his girl in Casino Royale.

There will almost certainly be another Bond film, which could sequel this opened ended effort of trying to eliminate the Quantum. Hopefully the next film will offer a better story and more realistic stunt sequences instead of the choppy ones this film has.
1/10
A very poor film, not directed just produced
emkayoh31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
148 out of 228 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have just come from watching the latest Bond film, and I am very disappointed. A production team sat around and decided that as the Bourne films were good at a scene switch every 30 frames a scene switch every 15 frames would be twice as good. I was bored. I really can't describe how poor this film is. Static cameras, short cut and long cuts on trolleys. Then poor (long) exposure times and slow film to generate sense of action, just revealed amateurish cinematography. If you really need to see this wait for the DVD, I suspect it won't be that long. Apparently I have to elaborate on how poor this film is, so that I can post here. Well it is bad, rubbish and a disgrace. There is little or no direction, the cameramen directed the film directed by the producers. Craig and Dench will happily take their fee. No idea or interest in the other characters.
4/10
Quantum of Plot
revival0516 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is about as fun as watching a car crash in slow motion. All you get is the collision, but it takes forever to get to that conclusion - The car has been crushed. Yes, we noticed. When the credits rolled for this movie, I had a difficult time trying to understand what it was about or what really happened in it, or rather which parts of these loose story threads they intended to be the actual "story" - all I knew for sure was that James Bond had killed a load of people. Actually, I'm going to make it easy on you. Quantum of Solace is about James Bond killing people. That's all you'll get from it. The verdict? Well, despite having less pretensions it is better than the downright horrible Rambo movie that came out early this year. How about that.

I had problems with Casino Royale, but I was the minority, and you'll just have to let those things go. Besides, it was a well-made piece of spy action, be that as it may that I didn't connect with it in the same way others did. Point is, I went in to Quantum of Solace knowing what to expect. I knew I would have to take this movie for what it was. Problem? That's just not very much.

So, the movie starts off with a routine car chase in Sierra, Italy. Along the narrow roads, Craig's bitter face is observing the random machine gun blokes in his windshield. I am already annoyed. I don't know who's to blame for this, it could be director Mark Forster or it could be the editors, but somebody is clearly not familiar with the action genre. Not only is this sequence tired and clichéd (and we are now talking about a 007 intro, where even the worst movies in the series could conjure up something imaginative in the first minutes), but it also has that classical flaw of action movies made by people with no knowledge of the genre - the scene isn't staged, but barely composed by a number of cuts. It's the easy way out, and it just becomes frantic, you loose your sense of orientation and eventually you just loose interest and starts to wait for the scene to be over, letting us get on with the movie. As the movie does get on, it is almost immediately interrupted by a chase sequence, also with every possibility to be good but spoiled by this boring mere montage of quick cuts.

From then on, the movie goes on and on and on and on. We get a car chase, a boat chase, an airplane chase, a fist fight, another fist fight, a shootout, an escape run, you name it, we've got it all. But it's all done by the numbers, you may say that a movie like The World Is Not Enough (1999) was hitting the marks of the formula, but Quantum of Solace is an action movie where every scene is obligatory and on the marks. Bond enters a quiet room, closes the door behind him, takes a few steps in the room. Count to four and there's a guy jumping out from the closet. There are two plot-point characters introduced... when will one be knocked off by the bad guys and when will the other turn out to be a double-crossing spy? And as I said, all of the action sequences are done with the same type of forced editing that isn't exhilarating, but will merely give you a headache. Not only is this just another action movie, it's a bad action movie.

You won't get anywhere trying to follow the story of this movie. Bond is on the trail of a crime organisation, well I guess that's natural. We don't get to know if 007 really is motivated by revenge or something else, and not in that top-of-the-iceberg/think-for-yourself kind of way, but we are simply not being told what he's thinking, what he's up to or, by that, what the point of the movie is. The villain, Greene (the only name in the movie tying to the tradition of funny names) is acting out as an environmentalist hero, but is actually in to buy up the water supply of Bolivia, by dealing with some mafia Lawrences there. Pretty exciting stuff, right?

I want to write more about Quantum of Solace, but I can't find anything interesting to say about it and that pretty much sums up the whole thing. It's a cold, gray, dead and poorly executed action film that's pretty boring to watch. That's it.
3/10
Imagine a Bond film made by the simpletons who created John Wick! Bingo.
daddysarm6 September 2020
Quantum Leap of Stupidity. It continues with the putrid, pointless plot and comic-book villains of Casino Royale. And then loses all the style and humor of a real Bond film. This Bond is barely better than that latest nonsense from lionsgate and K Reeves, John Wick. The entire last 20 minutes is a disgrace to Bond, as are all of the cut-here-cut-there brain-dead "action" scenes.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fun
breadandhammers18 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was a fun Bond movie and had more action than the slightly more subdued Casino Royale. The Bond girls feel a little outdated and constantly damsels in distress, though Camille bucks this trend a bit.
9/10
Lethal Weapon: Not your father's James Bond...get used to it! Craig is affective as a brooding, vengeance-seeking Bond
george.schmidt17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008) ***1/2 Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright, David Harbour, Jesper Christensen. Excellent sequel to "CASINO ROYALE" picking up right from that film's end with James Bond (Craig brooding affectively again as 007) seeking vengeance for the death of his lover by intercepting an international plot to abscond with the world's supply of water by French corporate snake Dominic Greene (a suitably reptilian turn by Amalric) and teaming up with hottie Camille (smoldering Kurylenko), who also has a personal vendetta to meke out. Slam-bang action (the opening car chase is arguably one of the best ever committed to celluloid) with some great fight sequences, a hairy air and sea chase, and some death-defying set pieces (the final fiery climax is a dilly) which mark for a new blood into the venerable franchise (thanks to Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade's mature script and skillful direction by the unlikely indie wunderkind Marc Forster). Kudos to the snappy editing by Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson.
2/10
I guess I'll die another day
CuriosityKilledShawn30 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a big step-down QoS is. If you are expecting the Godfather Part II or a sequel equal to The Dark Knight you are in for a huge disappointment. Despite being the highest budgeted Bond film ever (just where all the money went is beyond me), QoS is half-hearted and extremely simple. Of all the Bond films in history I've never seen one as straight-forward as this. Yet despite the simplistic nature, it's also an incomprehensible mess. I kid you not...you've NEVER seen an absolute MESS OF A FILM than this.

As a direct sequel to Casino Royale the film drops pretty much ALL plot and focuses on action. What little story there is, almost the same story from A View to a Kill (which was actually a carbon copy of Goldfinger), is nothing more than a weak excuse to string together a bunch of action scenes that feel more like alternate Jason Bourne fights rather than a Bond film. There's no mystery, no puzzle-solving and nothing resembling dangerous espionage. The 105-minute running time cripples QoS. Don't get me wrong, I hate films that are padded with dead weight, but QoS just feels too light and too hurried.

Daniel Craig handles the action well, but is thoroughly un-engaging when it comes to the emotional scenes. I don't like his interpretation of Bond and I am sick to death of all these 'tragic action heroes' that are so damn common these days. I'm also sick of guns as an extension of manhood, which QoS has a lot of.

The British press made a big hoo-hah over Gemma Arterton being cast as a Bond Girl (a term that I really don't like), but I swear she's in it for about five minutes and has about ten lines of dialogue before she meets a strange end in an obscure Goldfinger reference.

Eon made a big mistake in hiring Marc Forster. The class and elegance of Casino Royale has been replaced by the raging, confused testosterone of a hormonal fourteen-year-old boy. Robert Wade and Neal Purvis (who have spent way too long with the series) delivered their worst Bond screenplay so far. It's like they were afraid to put any kind of signature on it, resulting in the film feeling completely alien to the Bond universe. Take away the character and this unintelligible drivel could be any Statham or Seagal straight-to-DVD trash. I could type paragraphs and paragraphs about how utterly asinine the plot is, but I've got better things to do with my time, like pressing a burning iron against my skin.

Bond should call it a day. He's been in the movies for close to 50 years and, in my opinion, he's had too many restarts, too many women, and too many missions. Bond is a dinosaur and completely out of place in the modern world. Despite attempts at making him relevant and contemporary, I feel that his time is up and that he should step aside for a new hero. Just not a 'tragic' one.
7/10
Quantum of Silence
moutonbear2514 November 2008
When we last left James Bond (Daniel Craig), he had just found out that the first woman he ever gave his heart to had betrayed him. You do not get James Bond to feel something and then walk all over that newfound vulnerability. You just don't do that and, if you knew how hard it was for this particular brand of man to get there to begin with, you couldn't do it with any good conscious. When we last left James Bond, he also reinvigorated a franchise that wasn't in any actual serious danger of disappearing. Impressive, yes, but that is what James Bond does after all; he impresses with every fiber of his perfectly sculpted being. The trouble is there is only so high you can get and Craig's first outing as Bond, CASINO ROYALE, was not just impressive, it made me a believer in a character that has meant very little to me over the decades. So where does the first Bond sequel, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, go from there? Not very much further it seems. Apparently, the best hands were played in the last game.

I don't mean to make it sound horrible; it's just disappointing. QUANTUM OF SOLACE lacks the boundless, unexpected energy of CASINO ROYALE. This isn't for lack of trying. The action starts to move before you even have a chance to get comfortable with a high-speed car chase through the scenic Italian seaside. Then the action continues through underground tunnels, massive crowds, across rooftops, down scaffolding and through panes of glass while fighting in mid air and hanging from ropes. I didn't say it lacked in actual action. It's just that this particular action isn't as exciting or original as what we've already seen. Sure a boat chase that plays out like bumper cars in the water – with guns! – is exhilarating but it isn't as bracing as a two-man chase through a construction site, leading up to a fist fight 200 feet in the air on a narrow crane. Instead, every scenario Bond finds himself in seems facile and there is never any real question as to how it will play out. The caliber of stunt is much more Jason Bourne than James Bond. At one point, I half expected Matt Damon to show up running alongside him on the rooftops of Port au Prince.

While the action is still gripping, if somewhat less original, it is the story that is most thin in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Oscar winner, Paul Haggis, had to turn his script in before the writer's strike began last year to make sure that production would not be delayed. The result is rushed, expectedly. Themes like trust, truth and vengeance are tossed around as concepts but never solidified as concrete dilemmas in the characters' lives. And while one doesn't necessarily go to a James Bond film for depth, one does expect a certain complexity to the plot. In what is the shortest Bond film ever made, Bond's motivation is restricted to tracking down a mysterious terrorist group called Quantum. He must find out who and where they are and their eco-terrorist plot seems secondary to that. Bond must also contend with another vengeful force, Camille (a gorgeous and commanding, Olga Kurylenko), who is out to avenge her family. Could it be that she has come in to Bond's life to show him the reality of holding on to a need for revenge for so many years? Probably but it doesn't seem to have any effect on him at the end of the day.

I have a love/hate relationship with director, Marc Forster (love FINDING NEVERLAND and STRANGER THAN FICTION, hate STAY and THE KITE RUNNER) and was certainly skeptical when I heard he was coming on to direct this 22nd Bond film. He had never done any film this size and this explosive in his career but there are teams of people around on big budget pics like this to make sure that all the action comes off as it should. Forster was brought on for his storytelling abilities. This is fine logic but there is barely any story to tell here and he can't be faulted for having little to work with any more than the screenwriters can be faulted for having to get something in before going on strike. QUANTUM OF SOLACE certainly falls closer to the love side of my relationship with Forster than the hate side but more time needs to be taken with the next Bond – give Craig the time to do what he did first time out and show us the man behind the wheel of the Aston Martin. You can't just grab whatever you have behind the bar and slap a martini together in no time, expecting Bond to drink it. He would simply send it back and demand you make it again.
3/10
I Understand The Effort...But Don't Like It
zkonedog11 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For 40+ years, from Dr. No to Die Another Day and Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan, the James Bond formula remained basically the same: The gun-barrel opening, a lot of action, Bond says a few catchphrases ("Bond, James Bond" and "Shaken, Not Stirred"), Bond gets the girl, and the film ends with the James Bond theme pounding in the background.

A few years ago, however, a new Bond (Daniel Craig) brought a new formula (prequel) to the Bond franchise with Casino Royale, a gripping film that satisfies action fans as well as provides all the traditional Bond landmarks (albeit some in their inaugural forms) as described above. As Casino Royale ended, audiences were left feeling as if the "Craig Bond" was well on his way to becoming the Bond we know and love.

The trouble is, the ending of Quantum of Solace does the EXACT same thing...with little to no character development to back it up. For a basic plot summary, Bond spends the entire film trying to gain a measure of revenge for the death of Vesper, his girlfriend, in Casino Royale. A lot of fast cars, unbelievable chase scenes, and M-defying later, and supposedly Bond has reconciled his past and now able to move forward.

Unfortunately, nothing particularly engaging happened during that time to make me believe as if Bond really is a changed man. I think the problem is that Craig is never really allowed to wildly emote in a vengeful fashion...he harbors the same stoic expression the entire film. I would have loved to have seen a Matthew Fox-esque emotive rant that LOST fans have come to appreciate, but it just never happened. The strange thing is that it wasn't just overshadowed by the crazy action scenes...those were pretty much balanced for a Bond film. Just no emotion whatsoever.

Thus, while I appreciate this film's goal of trying to allow Bond to move on from his greatest tragedy, it just doesn't work. I would actually rather see a Bond film such as "Tomorrow Never Dies" or "The World Is Not Enough", installments that were heavy on the schtick and light on the plot, than this heavy film that didn't really get me excited until the Bond theme blared before the end credits.

Die-hard Bond fans will watch this film regardless of what I say, but this is a movie that you can skip and really not miss any of the early-Bond character development that was so compelling in Craig's first Bond effort.
1/10
James Bond is dead! Killed by shakycam!
Critomaton14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, so you've already heard the opening credits song is lame. It is, but that's the least of this flick's problems.

Then again, this movie might be for you if...

...you didn't get enough of Vesper whatshername in Casino Royale. She's mentioned ad nauseum as Bond's motivation in QoS, which is just as well, because the villains in this movie are so uninspired they probably couldn't get a real secret agent to stay an extra five minutes at the office: "Oh, it's Dominic Greene? I'll follow up in the morning. Evening, Moneypenny!"

...you needed to see James Bond destroy another Italian construction site.

...you were always upset that there were no scenes of Bernard Lee as M tweezing his nasal hairs. In this one you get to see Dame Judi Dench applying and removing face cream, so that's pretty close. It could have been worse, for a minute it looked like a setup for a nude scene.

That's right, you might enjoy this movie if...

...you thought Joe Don Baker's character in The Living Daylights was too well developed and you prefer your overweight military stooges to have less depth.

...you are sick of the memorable, relentless villainous sidekicks with special abilities, like Odd Job, Jaws, Tee Hee, and Red Grant. In this movie, the sidekick's only powers are a bad Jim Carrey Dumb and Dumber haircut and a creepy Quentin Tarantino vibe. And unlike the creepiest James Bond villain ever - Crispin Glover's dad - the QoS sidekick doesn't add any comic relief.

...you are a big fan of the Bourne, Batman, Blair Witch school of shakycam, 1/2-second per scene editing. This movie has at least 5 'big' action sequences that are utterly inscrutable. I think one of them was a car chase, and there might have been a boat in there somewhere, I'm not sure. Maybe some really cool stunts were performed in the making of QoS, but only the crew members know for sure, because it's too hard to tell from the finished product.

In fact, I'm confident you'll love this movie if...

...you hate high-tech gadgets on boats, cars, and planes, and would prefer Bond to defeat vast armies of better equipped foes armed only with the immutable laws of Hollywood (im)probability.

...you are tired of the elaborate sets used for the big finales in previous James Bond movies and wish they would just get real already and blow up a 3-story box out in the middle of nowhere with pretty much nothing at stake.

...you already knew that most cops are bad (Pride and Glory) and most government agents are bad (Body of Lies), but needed to be reminded that the USA is so bad it would even sell out James Bond.

...you have been waiting for Hollywood to give another South American country its comeuppance ever since Homer Simpson and family went to Brazil. The Bolivian air force doesn't come off too well in this one.

...you're a big Airwolf fan and miss all those scenes of antique airplanes chasing each other. Too bad in this one Stringfellow Hawke doesn't come swooping in and finish them both off.

As a fan of Timothy Dalton (from Flash Gordon, not The Rocketeer), I am always glad to see his JB films move up a notch or two from the bottom ranks. Frankly, his .500 batting average as Bond is better than Brosnan's, and Quantum of Solace makes Licence to Kill look like Lawrence of Arabia. QoS is so bad, I'm pretty sure I could actually re-watch The World is Not Enough before I could sit through this turkey again.

Totally apart from representing the artistic nadir of the series, Quantum of Solace is of major historical significance for another reason. Along with Transformers and Casino Royale, it can be placed in a time capsule so that future historians will have evidence of all of the really cool cars that American automakers failed to make available for sale in the U.S. before they went bankrupt. The new Camaro is taking longer to release than the Boeing 787, and the last two James Bond movies have featured very attractive small cars from Ford that are apparently for sale only in the Caribbean. WTF?

On the other hand... OLGA KURYLENKO!!!
6/10
"Solace" steers Bond down a dark, but not necessarily better path
Movie_Muse_Reviews14 November 2008
Being film's most iconic character of all time, James Bond is held to a higher standard than any other movie franchise's centerpiece. He got there by winning over all audiences by being a perfect cocktail of immaculate action hero and charming playboy, setting standards for gadgetry, cars, action sequences, filming locales, memorable villains, stunning women and more. It's an untouchable formula and yet "Quantum of Solace" distinctly chooses to mess with it, acting as a sequel and therefore having to tell a tale of mistrust and revenge. Whether it works is a matter of how much you cling to your daddy's James Bond and how willing you are to let him grow into a more modern, complicated character.

"Solace" picks up immediately after "Casino Royale," the franchise's reboot film that welcomed in Daniel Craig as the sixth 007. That makes it the first Bond sequel ever. Never has watching Bond necessitated the knowledge of a previous film, which is already an adjustment in itself. Since "Royale" gave us a fresh spin on Bond--him actually falling in love and having her taken from him--the follow up clearly had to introduce themes of revenge and as a result, the James we all know and love had to have a more complex psyche, or one at all some would argue.

With drama being more central to the plot, enter Paul Haggis, award-winning screenwriter for "Crash." to the team of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who made "Royale" refreshing and yet essential Bond, with great dialog and innovative action sequences. "Solace" suddenly takes a darker tone. Themes (that's right, people, Bond with themes!) like trust and revenge come into play, techniques like symbolism. Suddenly Bond isn't the same even though 21 other films are telling us otherwise.

Most noticeable of all is there's a distinct drop off in the clever dialog, in fact I don't think Bond ever smiles. Part of what made Craig an instant hit was his ability to so easily combine Bond's mix of business and pleasure, his toughness and his charm. "Solace" strips him of using those talents and that's unfortunate. Instead we get a very complex, reflective Bond, and while Craig does that well, it's not as likable as a character trait.

The plot is confusing and ultimately unimportant. Knowing Bond is out for revenge is enough to keep the film believable. Basically, "Solace" takes us all over the world so that Bond can beat people up or kill them in various climates. The film's action sequences are cool enough, though director Marc Forster's turn at action is a bit tough to watch. The sequences have so many cuts that happen so quickly that some of the scenes are an unintelligible blur. Occasionally there are some knockout shots that really rock, but it's mostly about the location shooting in terms of the film's visual statement.

Seeing Bond assume greater depth as a character certainly has its merits, but to sacrifice some of the best aspects of the franchise like the humor and playfulness might not really be worth it. The writers and producers, however, decided not to back down from the fact that they chose to send Bond in this direction and that's commendable. They made a committed choice to show us Bond's dark side and from that perspective it's a good film. Hopefully Bond's just had his one night stand with revenge and can be back to familiar territory when he takes the screen for the 23rd time.
6/10
One of the worst edited movies you'll ever see...
MamadNobari976 April 2020
First of all let me say what a horrendous opening song, the music at the begging is amazing and JB-like and you're like yeah let's go it's gonna be the best Bond song ever, then the vocals hit you and you're like "oh god no wtf is this sht stop it please", the song is just horrible, both singers succ azz but the male one succs more. There's a Shirley Bassey song that the same composer made and wrote that I don't know why tf they didn't use that. The director doesn't know w tf he's doing, the editor is having a seizure, there's no real plot in this movie and the movie is the same generic 2000's action movie with a forgettable baddie and it has the somehow worse editing than Taken 3, honestly with how they gave and Oscar to the Bohemian Rhapsody for editing I don't know how they didn't even nominate this movie for best editing! I think heard that it was the same time as the Writers Strike and they didn't have a real writer for this movie so the director just macgyvered the script and they went with it. Like jesus, couldn't you wait a year or two then hire a good writer for the movie and also a better director? It's not like you're gonna lose the right for the movie or people gonna forget about JB!

This should've been a worthy and competent sequel to the amazing Casino Royale movie but it's just a huge disappointment and the movie stinks and there's really nothing in this movie that you're gonna like.
7/10
Both shaken and stirred
Chris Knipp16 November 2008
People tend to agree that the "new" James Bond, Daniel Craig, is awesome--and really new. Ian Fleming's original Bond was "cruelly handsome." Craig's got the cruel part, but looks take second place to muscle. He isn't pretty and he isn't stylish except insofar as a man who's lean and hard looks well in a good suit. Though he's brisk and then some--faster than a speeding bullet--he's rather sullen. His face is gnarly, able to regenerate scar tissue with stunning rapidity but little suited to the registering of human emotion. If he strains a bit he can just manage a snarl. Craig is above all a tougher, more pared-down Bond, whose finesse comes not in his skill at seducing a woman or pouring a cocktail but in the capacity to survive any physical challenge. This second Bond film with Craig shows his version can still be fun, and his adventures, amazingly, given all that's been hacked off, still contain some of the glamorous, extravagant feel of the earlier films and of Fleming's silly, superficial, but irresistibly entertaining novels. But the franchise (this is said to be Bond film no. 22) has been updated and reconceived for our times.

Not only Bond, but the other trappings of the books and previous films have been rethought. "M" is now a woman--Judy Dench, solid, crisp, understated, and curiously protective. When others want to derail Bond for killing all the suspects in a case, she sees to it that he's allowed to continue. There are beautiful babes, but not so many and not for so long. There's futuristic gadgetry. But it's more plausible, and less individual. No exploding cigarette lighters or weapon-emitting vehicles with ejection seats; just the high-tech essentials of our day--telephones cued in with computers and data systems. And some excesses: at one point Bond intercepts a dozen bad guys holding a conference call using little nodules in their ears as they sit in the audience of an ultra-modern and plenty-loud production of 'Tosca' in Bregenz, Austria. Bond suggests they try another venue. Indeed they might. But Bond himself makes do with nothing but a pistol and his own indestructible body.

Unlike Jason Bourne, 'Quantum's' Bond his no mystery to solve, just a score to settle. There's no self-questioning, just a grudge.

Unfortunately, there's no finesse. Yes, Bond has an elaborately prepared cocktail, but it's more complicated than fun, no "shaken, not stirred" (a formula mocked by Craig's Bond in his first outing). There's no Fleming fascination with chic brand names. Bond dons evening clothes and the good suits--only slightly bulgy from the muscles. He drives a Bondian Astin Martin during the ridiculously violent and rapid chase along the Italian Riviera that opens the movie, but though there may be some pleasure in seeing extremely expensive European sports cars battered and colliding like toy bumper cars, there's no elegance in it. The poor Astin gets its door torn off, and looks a wreck all the way through the scene.

Bond himself is like that car. He's thrown about, and in several sequences jumps around on buildings as if practicing the French sport of parkour, which has been defined as "an activity with the aim of moving from one point to another as efficiently and quickly as possible, using principally the abilities of the human body." That, in a nutshell, is Daniel Craig as 007. Like Matt Damon's Jason Bourne, his body is his main weapon. Bond's taken away by three MI6 men--or four, I didn't have time to see-- under orders from "M," and taken into an elevator. "M" probably knows this will happen: five seconds after the elevator doors close behind them the would-be guards are all on the floor unconscious, only Bond left standing. We can't even see how he did it; so what? It was inevitable.

'Quantum' may offer 'Solace,' but it's short not only on elegance but wit. There's little humor and the bad guys lack Fleming's bizarre flourishes. There's a standard-issue South American dictator waiting to take over again. There's a fake eco-sensitive entrepreneur named Greene (Matthieu Amalric), who will strike a bargain with anybody, just like an actual global arms dealer. He corners the water supply to help the general take over the country: it's all too plausible. True to life too, the statement that the Americans don't matter much any more. True to the film's seriousness, the salt-and-pepper CIA duo, with James Wright as the shrewder of the two, Felix Leiter, who becomes Bond's ally, may seem destined to be buffoons, but they get the straight treatment.

You can't see all this as a dumbing down. Fleming's books were clever and entertaining, but hardly what you could call brain twisters. It's a simplification, a toughing up. And a speeding up--the latter adjusted to suit the 21st-century TV generations accustomed to five images a second, to brain-damaging ADD-engendering, Ritalin-requiring, stimulus-hungry young boy's minds. The opening sequence, with its unmotivated, unexplained, pointless, sense-jarring car clashes and spins and falls, is designed just for them, to say: don't worry. We know you're watching, and we're going to give you what you want. But though large parts of the world are growing fatter and softer, athletes have grown tougher and faster, and all spectators know that, so the Sixties Bond now seems effete, and he had to be reconditioned to meet the demands of Extreme Sports and the fantasy quotient of the digital age.

Is this a good movie? It's an entertainment, just like all the other Bond pictures, and though we can sigh the lack of the old charm, this lean and mean model holds its own quite well. If only there were more conversation. And if only it would relax a bit more.
1/10
Bondectomy: Taking a Bond film and surgically removing style and substance
gundognc14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This latest Bond is a collection of pretty poorly organised set pieces strung together by a plot that is actually made of holes. I didn't like Casino Royale With Cheese much but I respected the intention behind it. I still think they should have just called it "Bourne Begins" and had done with it but then (thank God) I don't work in UA's marketing department. Having said that, I liked Craig as Bond and I was looking forward to this film in the hope that they could do something different to Casino. They did. Sadly not in a good way.

Craig has none of the panache or wit he displayed in Casino and while I respect Kurilenko's artistry (in removing all clothing at every opportunity) I don't think she's a great actress and not even a great Bond girl. Dench comes off as indecisive, one minute she's condemning Bond the next supporting him. None of this is the actors fault who, I think, do as much as they can with what they have but what they do have is minimal.

--Spoiler--

Starting moments after the end of the last film Bond is chased to Siena with the captured Mr White in the boot of his car. White promptly escapes courtesy of M's bodyguard who, it turns out, was actually Mr Deus E. MacHina. Bond pursues him across the rooftops of Siena before they both fall into a big Heath Robinson / Rube Goldberg machine and Bond kills him.

Chasing a money trail to Haiti, Bond decides to rescue noted Bolivian Irina Androvnova Norkoutski from the clutches of the evil General Belgrano who's kidnapped her at the behest of her boyfriend Mr Green, Mr White's colleague. Sadly Messrs Teal, Magenta and Cyan wont be appearing until the next film. The General wants Mr Green's money to finance his coup in Bolivia. He's spotted that, after about 30 years of universal suffrage, free elections and political stability, what the Bolivians really want is another bloody great civil war.

The Americans (now taking over from the British as the world's bad guys) have agreed to recognise the General as the head of the Bolivian government if they can have the oil that they believe Mr Green has found under the Bolivian desert. Bond follows Green to Austria and listens in on a board meeting of SMERSH... sorry SPECTRE... sorry, Quantum. During his escape he appears to have killed a special branch bodyguard and is disavowed. He recruits his colleague Mathis (from Casino)and the two of them head off to Bolivia where they are met by Totty McDoomed (Gemma Arterton, fresh from critical pannage in unilateral sh1tfest St Trinians), an attractive attaché from the British Consulate. The film makers, wisely realising that it takes too much effort to write sexy, witty dialogue, have Bond seduce Totty in one of the most ludicrous moments in film history. Bond and Totty go up to his suite and Bond says "I cant find the stationary" and in the next scene he and Totty are in bed together. Yer-what!? It's like a badly made porno without the money shot. Did I miss the memo about the pant-dampening eroticism of stationary? As a man, do I fail to see Bond's smouldering seductiveness? This is a moment that achieves new heights in the pantheon of lazy writing.

Bond gets hold of a plane and with Irina in tow goes in search of Mr Green's proxy and discover that Green's been collecting water not oil. It's lucky for him that Bolivia only has one source of water because otherwise it might be difficult to corner the entire country's supply.

Returning to the hotel, Totty has been drowned in oil. For why, we are never told. Possibly Green is just kinky that way but given that it's already been established that his plan involves water not oil it's a strange choice. Bond doesn't have time to lament the loss of another of the world's great stationary fetishists because the CIA want him dead. He escapes and, for reasons too secret to let the audience in on, knows to chase Green and the General to a hotel in the middle of the Bolivian desert. It turns out that the Hotel, built on sustainable environmental principles is also the worlds most flammable building so Bond sets it on fire. Take that environmentalism! I'm not a massive environmentalist (as can be judged by the fact that I normally leave the "environ" out when using the word) but I cannot help but think that this is some crazed subconscious attack on the whole movement by the writer. Perhaps his father was killed by some particularly "live" yogurt.

While the building collapses Bond kills some people and cripples Green. Camille kills the General. Bond maroons Green in the middle of the desert with a only can of motor oil to drink presumably in recompense for drowning Totty in the stuff.

Finally Bond goes to Russia and find's dead ex Vespa's boyfriend who is busy seducing a new target. Bond has the boyfriend arrested and forgives Vespa for betraying him in Casino.

--Spoiler--

Quantum of Balls has the realism of Moonraper, the originality of Never Say Hairpiece Again, the acting of On Her Majesties Big Pile of Australian Pants, the continuity of The World Is Not ADD Enough, and all the style of Octopieceofeck. It's sort of a "perfect storm" of bad Bond films. Frankly it should be avoided like the plague.
2/10
James Bond or Jason Bourne?
enettekoven18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The answer is: Neither!

I already thought Casino Royale was just "ok" and I really hoped that Quantom Of Solace would make up for the lack of Bond-characteristics in Casino Royale. Unfortunately it did not. This is the worst Bond movie ever made.

Where are the unique Bond gadgets? Where is Q? Where is the English humor? Where is the shaken not stirred Martini? Where is "my name is Bond, James Bond"? Or better yet: Where IS James Bond? This James Bond is more a kind of Jason Bourne, but that would too much credit for this James Bond. Calling the character James Bond is already too much credit!

According to me this Bond movie is just another action movie, which may not even be put near the Bond series! The directing was poor, there was no real excitement, everything was very predictable. We even considered leaving the theater early because we were bored by this movie. Just because we hoped that the ending might be good, we sat out this movie. Too bad it did not get any better.

I really hope the next Bond movie (if there is a next) will be more Bond like and less Bourne like. What a waste of my buck.
1/10
Long Live James Bond, The King is Dead
gerry1598 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I suppose that some posters don't know that Ian Fleming put his own exploits into his novels which were bought to the screen, TV and later introduced Sean Connery who at once became the epitome of James Bond, 007. Well, as we know that was some time ago and now the James Bond series is the most profitable in screen history. Once upon a time we looked at Bond as being the cooliest man to grace the screen. He was handsome, smart, intelligent, was authorized to carry a gun and the women simply dropped their knickers when he looked their way or just said his name. O K, now we come to this latest Bond outing Quantum of Solace a film that was not thought out and was completely messed up by the director and his second team. The plot was just too hard to follow and make matters worse, you didn't even care. All we saw was countless chase sequences that were too violent to be real, Judy Dench looking her age and saying stupid things and Daniel Craig looking like a hunk that you took home on Saturday night and certainly not like James Bond. All in all, I was very disappointed in this outing and hope and pray that the producers go back to the drawing board and give us a worthy Bond movie. This one stunk!
1/10
Quantum of disappointment
goldenstar213 November 2008
I am a huge fan of the Bond movies going back to the very first. Not being qualified to comment on the technical aspect of Quantum of Solace, I would like to add my two cents worth from a viewers perspective. The start of the movie is absolutely dreadful; where is the "Bond music" that has introduced us to these memorable movies over the years? Bond now reminds me of a two bit thug, the polish has completely disappeared from his character leaving us with a KGB clone, Ian Flemming must be spinning in his grave! The short scenes are irritating, and a comprehensible, believable storyline does not develop - this is just a dime comic book translated into film. Where is Q, where are the interesting gadgets he cunningly dreamed up? Where is Moneypenny? Heaven forbid another one of these travesties gets made!
22 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fantastic Action Scenes! But there seems to be something missing?
3xHCCH12 November 2008
"Quantum of Solace" has all the trappings of a typical James Bond film. This is a very exciting action film. It is action-packed from the very beginning. It starts with a very rough car chase. How the Aston Martin can still move smoothly after all of those heavy hits and how James gets through practically unscathed is the stuff of Bond legend.

The film explodes a basic revenge plot into overwhelming proportions. It also brings us from one exotic location to another as Bond follows Dominic Green of the Green Planet company for some issue involving the Casino Royale Bond girl Vesper Lind. Action takes us from Siena, Italy to London, to Haiti, to Austria, back to Italy, then off to Bolivia, then finally to Russia.

There were chases and encounters on foot, and involving all forms of transportation, by land, by water, and by air! The editing of the scenes during the staging of "Tosca" in Austria, and the fiery explosions in the Perlas de las Dunas in Bolivia are definitely award-worthy. The parkour scenes were reminiscent of "Casino Royale," however it was topped by the amazing fight scene on the scaffolding with all the falling glass shards.

Overall, it was a good action movie. "Casino Royale" was better though, in my opinion. Rough-hewn Daniel Craig was really very cool in his demeanor and stance. His Bond is practically superhuman, yet still realistic (in some inexplicable contradiction of adjectives). Olga Kurylenko as Camille, the Bond girl, does not immediately strike as a typical beauty, though she did grow on me as the movie progressed. I guess there is a little bit something lacking amidst all that fantastic action, and I think it may have been the weakness of the storyline.
Lack of talent may destroy world cinema greatest franchise
Marion889 November 2008
When a formulaic screenplay meets a talentless director the greatest franchise in film history is in serious danger. No imagination, predictable scenes, repetitive action scenes shot clumsily by a director who cannot seem to give his actors any direction - as a result the actors speak their lines like priests at a funeral - A feeling of confusion, a big headache due to inelegant speedy editing of shaky close up shots. The director edits 15 close ups back to back and the spectator loses all sense of location and action scenes become tedious. What may seem cool on on a small avid monitor turns out to be a disaster on a big screen. Well what about the usually beautiful inventive opening credits sequences? Dull ugly graphics which may have seemed cool 20 years ago although I doubt it. Definitely not at par with the rest of the Bonds, including the previous Craig Bond movie which seems a masterpiece in comparison with this Quantum of Disaster. First time in my life I see people walk out the theater during a Bond movie. All feeling sorry and ashamed for Bond.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A good film ruined by appalling direction
john-17131 November 2008
This film could have been so good, but Marc Forster's clichéd and ham-fisted direction completely ruined it for me. To be fair, his handling of the quieter moments between the action was adequate, but he clearly has no grasp of how direct action sequences, which are clearly central to any good Bond. I'm afraid the 'shake the camera and cut at least once a second' school of action direction doesn't really cut it.

It's tragic really, as the setup and the stunts for the sequences looked pretty promising, but you had to look pretty hard to tell once Mr. Forster's hopeless direction kicked in. Such a waste.

I think I'll hold out for the special edition DVD - you know - the non-directors cut!
616 out of 960 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Poorly directed and edited.
guitargod21126 January 2020
This is the type of movie you get when you have a really terrible director: you have to have a fast editor. Fact: there were 6784 cuts in the first five minutes of the movie. That averages out to about 73 cuts a second. The world record! Just kidding, of course. But fast editing is a cover for a terrible director. It's very hard to follow the action. And the story is just mediocre.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing, and I'm not a Bond fan.
Sergeant_Tibbs9 November 2008
In a sentence; it just rolls off the momentum of Casino Royale. All of the ambiance and elegance is completely lost. This supposed and promised motive of Bond's is entirely unconvincing, making the hollow screenplay an utter mess in an attempt to mesh the contrasting themes (that being, 'Bond vs. current Villain' and 'Bond and his personal interest'). Also, the villain's fiendish plots are hardly realized making it extremely uninvolving. The action scenes are exciting at the time, but not strong enough to create any striking images. There's also limited excitement since the protagonist is unquestionably and apparently immortal. Daniel Craig is a great action hero; as long as he doesn't say anything. Although this is a half-good thing, considering the character, he fails at creating any convincing chemistry. Amalric manages to be subtly sinister in himself but as a character he's never given a chance to truly become any kind of a threat for Bond or the government or the public. It seems to plod sub-characters in there for no other reason than to amplify the transitions of the previous ideas and formulas of the series; which was uneffective. Although I shouldn't expect any less, the dry humour is thoroughly unwelcome and distracting. In the end, wholly unsatisfying.

3/10
1/10
Quantum of Nonsense
stephengward5 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When a new 007 movie opens I'm always eager to watch it on the opening weekend – yes, I'm a bond fan of old and love the series. However, with this entry I've waited until only now to view it - unlike other Bond movies, I won't be paying to see this again at the cinema. Sadly, since Daniel Craig came onto the scene I've felt increasingly alienated from the franchise. Undoubtedly Craig is a fine actor, but then again so is Bob Hoskins, but I'd imagine he has never been a serious contender for the part! Really if Craig were to appear in a Bond flick, he'd be best suited to either the Robert Shaw 'Red Grant' character in From Russia With Love, or that of 006 in Goldeneye. To have him playing the great man himself is frankly laughable. Anyway, that aside, there's very little in this film to affiliate it with its predecessors, QOS is simply an action movie and not a very good one at that. If we're to have countless set pieces with very little story in-between, at least make the action watchable. The camera filming the proceedings may as well have been placed in a cement mixer – don't get me wrong, from what I could make out, it looked pretty decent fair – although we'll never know because director, Marc Forster, insists on adopting this increasingly annoying practice of shaky camera work in a vain effort to make the viewer feel part of the action. For the record, this style of film making is woeful and the sooner this trends dies away the better – incidentally, Forster's previous films weren't action driven and boy does this show! So, a Bond movie without any opening gun barrel, no Q; no gadgets, no moneypenny, minimal use of the Bond theme, an actor who doesn't resemble the pre-conceived image the majority of the audience has of 007 and no utterance of the immortal line "Bond, James Bond" – I'm all for a change of direction in the series, the last two Pierce Brosnan efforts were tired and clichéd. Instead of working within the world of 007, the producers seem to have thrown in the towel and opted simply to make action movies with a character called James Bond instead of making actual James Bond movies. This is a fundamental mistake and only goes to affirm the notion that, where once 007 dictated the action movie genre, now it simply follows the rest.
3/10
Near loser.
AndrePhilidor21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig was a poor choice for the next Bond. James Bond will always be Sean Connery (and vice versa). Subsequent replacements were mere shadows, but nearly all had style, class, and savoir faire. Craig is just a gritty street fighter. I don't recall a single smile or lighter moment in Quantum of Solace. The gadgets are missed (they were all fun). The clever quips are missing. Bond's and the villain's clever dialogue. E.g., Bond is strapped to a table, legs wide apart, with a laser beam coming up toward vital organs. Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" "No", replies Goldfinger, "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond." The introduction looking through a gun barrel was discarded. It was a very bad idea not to include a sequence from "Casino Royale" with the death of Bond's love, Vesper Lynd. No one in the audience remembered this loss or why he may have been seeking vengeance.

And, finally (a spoiler). The hotel is engulfed in flames. The villain, Vesper Lynd's killer, is hanging onto a balcony with his fingertips. Bond pulls him up (seemingly by the hair), saving him from falling into the fiery pit.

In the next scene, Bond releases the killer in the middle of the desert, saying his people (the villain's) will catch him and do him in, and then tosses him a can as he drives off. What was in the can? Beer? Pepsi Cola? We learn as the movie concludes, the villains body was found, an autopsy performed and his stomach contained motor oil!? Yeah, sure, parched and burning from the sun in the middle of the desert, he will (somehow having found a can opener), drink the motor oil in desperation to relieve his thirst. About as stupid a bit of screen writing as ever seen. If he was going to knock him off, why didn't Bond just drop the villain into the roaring fire with a clever bit of repartee??? No, he just pulls him up, and sets him off in the desert for a slow (but uncertain) roasting, telling him his wicked confreres (the villain's) will find him and punch his ticket.

We go to see every Bond movie (and have seen them all) because they are hugely entertaining, exciting, and enormously amusing. All in all, just plain fun. Quantum of Solace was just grim, and lacking in all of the above. Some of the stunts were good, but stunts alone do not a story make. And finally, what makes a great movie is a great story. This one is a complete miss. We walked out of the movie sorely disappointed.

Oh, yes. Other reviewers have also complained, but I must add that the intentionally choppy camera work (a la the Bourne movies) demands a huge cry of outrage from viewers. What are they thinking??? Is this supposed to add to the excitement of the action? It does NOT. This is just some demented filmwork that film-makers think makes them artistic. It just makes them damn fools, and if we put up with it, add us to the list. Not a single one of the Sean Connery films required extra "juice" to add excitement. The story, the action, the stunts, all were outstanding and plenty exciting. When these nitwits get the idea that a good movie does not need silliness, they might just possibly return to making good movies. QOS should be condemned to the dust heap.
5/10
And this is supposed to be James Bond?
Tomici12 January 2009
This is the first Bond movie I just couldn't watch to the end without pressing FF (fast forward) button. I mean, what happened with all those great Bonds we had chance to watch in the previous century? This one is nothing compared to them.

First of all, there is no intelligent script. I mean, there practically is no plot. The whole movie is about Bond jumping around, beating and killing everyone who gets in his way. I don't know, maybe Forster, Haggis, Craig and others met one day at lunch and one of them said: " Hey guys, I don't have anything smart to do next 2 or 3 weeks. What about you? We could make another Bond movie, shall we? " And they did it.

When I saw Casino Royale I wasn't very impressed, but it was one very good Bond because it had almost everything this one doesn't. Above all, Craig proved he was very good choice for Bond. In this sequel he is good too. But everything else isn't. It's just another unoriginal big budget action movie with some great action scenes. Even Craig can't do anything to make this mess looks better. And I really don't understand how can this movie be so highly rated. Is today a few good action scenes really enough to make a good movie? Hell, looks like it really is.

So, if you are looking for some good action movie, I strongly suggest you watch something else ( I believe Taken would be a great choice). After this, I will strongly consider watching the next Bond movie.
5/10
A Crudfest of Dullness
cogleone6 November 2008
This should have been the real title. After Casino Royale, we were all re-energised, we were all psyched for another instalment of Bond. However Quantum of Dullness just didn't deliver. It reverts back to the old Bond, you know, the ones that start quite well then get confusing and before its even half way through, you've lost interest and walked out of the cinema. Viz once did an article "Guess the Bond film with Leonardo Dicaprio" family members all sat around on Christmas day, watching the Bond film on TV, nobody could guess which one it was, "Goldfinger" said Grandpa, "Octopussy" said Auntie Mavis, however, none of this mattered because everybody was asleep by the first commercial break. Well this is a perfect analogy for the latest film.

Confusing, dull, un-engaging? yes. Fit women, nice cars? yes. Make loads at the box office? yes. Handpicked reviewers on a payout to write positive reviews? yes. Ridiculous flimsy bad guy with outrageous global plan? yes.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The death of Bond
harryplinkett1422 January 2015
No, Skyfall did not save this franchise. It was the zombie of a corpse that Quantum of Solace had buried.

The crisis with Bond films started when the Roger Moore era ended. The two films with Dalton were not bad, but they just didn't feel like James Bond, especially the second one. They couldn't find the right tone, and Dalton - the best actor to ever play Bond, in my opinion - didn't fit the role, despite his talent. Then came Pierce Brosnan. He was a good Bond, but the scripts were not good. Moreover, already in his first Bond film, 'Goldeneye', his masculinity is criticised by the mew 'M' - an old woman who was put in the film for p.c. reasons. She even proceeds to call Bond a 'dinosaur' who is stuck in a past where crazed feminists do not rule over men.

And then came poor Daniel Craig whose muscular body is used mainly for the pleasure of the homosexual portion of the audience and who is no real man. He may work out and act tough at times, but he will always report to his grandma (sorry - 'M') and never challenge the p.c. dogma in any way. He now doubts himself, takes long showers to deal with his neurosis and pain, and apparently tries to get in touch with his feminine side. In 'Skyfall' he actually enlists his granny to help him fight the homosexual villain who apparently just wanted to get Bond to go to bed with him all along.

So how does 'Quantum' fit here? It is the dull, boring middle film with wafer-thin plot, unimaginative and poorly edited action scenes, and lots of weird cuts and scenes that confuse the audience. It ends with an anti-climax, and when credits start rolling the audience is left wondering why we still haven't seen the grand finale.

There is no sense of closure and the audience is left wondering about what it was they saw. It seemed like a series of episodes that barely fit together.

Ultimately everything about this film is bad: the script, the direction, the editing, and ultimately the values it reflects.
6/10
Why?
spirals233 January 2009
Bond goes from iconic hero to a poor man's Jason Bourne. What happened to the humour and style? Why is Bond no so serious. Are we really going to buy this deep love for the girl that died stuff? It's teenage drama.

And why is it every action scene in a movie since Saving Private Ryan has to use super fast editing? Sure it is effective and when first seen in SPR was awesome. But its got too fast. Half the time its impossible to know what is going on.

Saying all that this film did have one redeeming feature - it didn't hang around, the plot ticked along (although was still hard to follow) and came in on 90 minutes. Most action films are so long these days they should come with a half time ice cream break.
25 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film really let me down
mvern9-13 November 2008
***SPOILERS*** I'm afraid this film really let me down (I'm crying), and, being very bored and lonely, I thought I'd tap it into a little review: I was worried within the first 5 minutes, opening with a highly stylized car chase that was billed as spectacular, but was in fact pathetic. The camera work on all the action scenes throughout the film is misjudged. It might just be me, but the action scenes left me uninvolved. The action is shot too close up and the editing is manic (I think the editor's been watching too much 'MTV Cribs' and the director thinks he's making a Guinness ad). I would rather the cinematographer took a step back and let us watch the action proper, rather than trick us with close up, shaky hand held camera work, that allow the director to avoid filming well, thought out, choreographed scenes that might warrant and 'show off' the $225,000,000 spent! Maybe a viewing of 'Crouching Tiger' or 'Ronin' might teach Marc Forster (director) a thing or two. Or, maybe I should have said Bourne Ultimatum as is seems the Bond boys are trying to make a follow up.

Daniel Craig is good and has obviously put a lot of effort into the stunt work but his 'ice steel' hard as f**k look, grows a little tiresome. As for Gemma Arterton ( Agent Fields) she simply can't act and her role was utterly pointless (god knows why she's starring in 'Prince of Persia). Olga Kurylenko is pretty good though, and just manages to convey the sense of her back story, although this not well realized by the screenwriters.

The story is very weak and un-involving. Something about a load of stupid nasty men who conduct meetings using radio earphone and microphone systems, given to them in gift bags, during an opera surrounded by 20,000 other people. I couldn't think of a more difficult and stupid way to conduct a secret meeting. Bond is clever though, and listens in, he then tells them over the radio system they're all stupid and he can hear what they're saying, so they all stand up and (unsubtly) walk out allowing Bond to photograph them all, like stupid idiots.

Most people have forgotten the details of Casino Royal (which didn't have the clearest of plot finishes) so to throw the audience straight back in, with lots of action and little plot felt like the film had been written by an immature kid, over a weekend, whist smashing Class A's. If I wanted to see a film like that I'd settle for Transformers any day.

The theme song (White and Keys) and opening credit sequence are possibly the most unimaginative Bond openers ever. As with the film, it's all very unoriginal. Seen it all before and done better.

This maybe a new type of Bond film but I'd rather watch Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Pierce Bronson doing 'Bond' and Matt Damon doing 'Bourne'. Maybe Daniel Craig just needs a new script and better direction.
3/10
Terrible movie.
crimetex15 January 2009
I never agreed with the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond. In the past, we thought movies like The Bourne Trilogy were imitating James Bond movies. I guess with the last two it's been the other way around, not it is the Bond franchise imitating the Bourne movies. Very fast motion frames, sequences with extreme fights, it's like watching Jason Bourne but with a different name and a not so foxy fella. Story totally flunked, villains are not as remarkable as they used to be, yes, maybe it would seem partially realistic, but that's never been the idea with these James Bond movies. Too bad they decided to give it this twist, it's totally bitter and makes us want to have Pierce Brosnan back -but I guess darn producers will never listen to us, the audience. I thought a bad choice was made when Timothy Dalton played Bond, now I can see there was room for someone worse...
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I didn't care...
MattDevivre9 November 2008
Considering action sequences "Quantum of Solace" isn't innovative which is not ideal for something that completely relies on action. The plot is... well let's say "minimalistic". The story definitely lost quality since "Casino Royale" (which wasn't my favourite Bond, but more enjoyable than most Brosnan Bonds) and another revenge flick is something... something I simply can't stand any longer.

Especially regarding its editing "Quantum of Solace" seems inspired by the latest "Bourne" but it turns pale in comparison. It seems like the ambitious director and his editor couldn't handle fast editing and action sequences. I believe that Forster (who proved talent within a different genre - think about "Monster's Ball" or "Finding Neverland") doesn't have enough experience with the action genre. Perhaps Bond came too early for him.

After all "Quantum of Solace" is no horrible film but it doesn't meet the higher expectations. If suddenly it disappeared I wouldn't miss it. It's even hard to write anything about it: It didn't annoy me, I didn't enjoy it... I simply didn't care (especially due to the story which didn't interest me). You might say it was quiet an unemotional experience.

Summing up: an interesting cast but the writers and the director did not leave much space for acting. The action is solid but nothing special. There are worse pictures these days and there are worse Bonds. Besides if you're not sick of revenge films and action with little story perhaps you can even enjoy it.
2/10
Worst Bond Ever
ookevin00724 August 2010
I've been a fan of the Bond Series since Dr. No. This film has completely missed what a Bond film is and turned me off future movies in the series. It's even worse than the Dalton Bonds. Casino Royale had been a return to the feel of the original Connery films. This film is dull, long, boring and badly directed.

Although I am not a fan of Craig as Bond, I felt sorry for him. They won't let him be Bond. He comes off more like a second rate Bourne. The photography was so bad you can't even tell when he is doing his own stunts! They could have used a woman as his stunt double and you wouldn't be able to tell. He even injured himself making this film!

Somebody get these film makers a steady cam and a tripod so the audience see the action! Imagine all the great stunts of the early films if the picture was bouncing all over the screen.....awful!

With the delay in the series over legal battles it may be years before the next one......Hopefully a new actor for Bond and back to the feel of Casino Royale and the original Connery films......and a cinematographer who knows what a tripod is!
10/10
When did mainstream cinema get this good?
svw9 November 2008
I loved Quantum of Solace. But I'm totally bewildered. When did mainstream cinema stop using cartoon villains, stop casting women as boring helpless one-dimensional retards, stop using tedious cheesy bigoted dialogue and start using locations in the developing world without cringeworthy condescension? When did everything change so radically? This was an extremely tough, cool, exciting, sophisticated, international action film (with a feel bordering on futuristic) which I enjoyed from start to finish. What a blast! A totally engaging and impressive piece of work. Craig is complex, vulnerable, unbelievably tough, and for me, easily the best Bond of all time.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bond Destroyed by No-Nothing Director
vitaleralphlouis26 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Easily the worst Bond movie in decades, Quantum of Solace offers the worst photography, worst editing, worst continuity and worse musical score. The camera jumps around and tries to create Viewer Headache and any story is impossible to follow if the camera work is jumbled. Add to this 75% of the (sparce) dialog is spoken in a mumble.

Absolutely nothing but stupidity in the initial 15 minutes: smashed cars, broken glass, flames, et cetera. Well, gee whiz, we ain't never seen car crashes in a movie before. Wow! What follows is an almost plot less remaining 75 minutes, almost as stupid as the opening 15.

On the plus side we get a few good glimpses of Port au Prince Haiti, Sienna Italy and La Paz Bolivia; although there's no particular reason why the story hops all over the globe when the problem is firmly planted in Bolivia. The only other good part is Bond's girl pal Camille in her scenes at the waterfront in Haiti. She has several square inches of sunburn peeling off her back. Had I been there I couldn't have resisted peeling the dead skin. Peeling sun-burn is an underrated exotic experience, but Mr. Bond didn't bother with it.

Perhaps the filmmakers had too many lines of cocaine on the table, else they'd have seen the daily rushes and known they'd made one big sorry mess. But cocaine's like that: it makes a person full of themselves.
2/10
This is not James Bond
movieman89-217 November 2008
I went to see this the other night and I have to say I was extremely disappointed.

The editing was terrible. The fight scenes went so quick that you couldn't tell who was fighting who. The film went too quick for a story.

There was no connectivity with the characters, no gadgets, well there was but with no explanation of the gadget.

The theme song sounded like my cat going to the vets (screeching.

If you are a James Bond fan, You would feel the same way I did when I saw it.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Quantum of Solace
Exeron30 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
36 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So i'm lucky enough living in a country where the film is being viewed for the first time to the public. I've had mixed expectations on this one because i knew there were going to be á la Bourne Identity. But i also knew that Daniel Craig would deliver a pretty good performance. And the main villain played by Mathiue Amalric, who actually wasn't as good as i'd thought...but his performance wasn't a disappointment.

The movie begins with one of the worst bond intros i've ever seen; a car scene where you practically see nothing because of the super-shaky-way of filming it...

The main theme, peformed by Alicia Keys; which was a decent song, better than i'd expected.Although it ends with a ridiculous oh-oh-uh-oh-oh...

One thing that i really noticed in this movie; is how my feelings for Daniel Craig as Bond really changed. During a conversation between him and M i realized...this man isn't Bond. I've never thought of it before but when i saw him standing there with his heavy face i just couldn't help myself comparing him to preview bond actors...Pierce and Sean are still the only right Bond actors for me.

For those who expects heavy camera action...well you won't be disappointed, at some points i couldn't actually see what was going on. And i'm used (unfortunately) to films that are shot that way...

I'd like to point out that there's a scene at the opera which i want you to keep an extra eye on. This scene was one of the greatest i've ever seen in a Bond movie before...so keep that in mind.

Quantum Of the Solace isn't a disappointment and there's no reason for you to have second thoughts on paying for a ticket...it's a real popcorn film.
Slick and beautiful looking addition to the Bond series.
pianissimo_5504 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Quantum of Solace' heralds the return of Daniel Craig's James Bond.It starts straight after 'Casino Royale'-- hungry for revenge Bond seeks Vesper's killer.I had read some poor reviews of this film before attending.In my humble opinion this film is pure 'new' Bond!From the opening car chase to its finale the break-neck pace does not let up.It has been shot and edited in a thrilling and groundbreaking way bringing to mind the successful earlier films(i.e Peter Hunt and Terence Young influence).For me this film is a much more exciting film than its predecessor because the action images are very specific -- the fight scenes, chases etc made want to applaud Marc Forster, his editors and his second unit.Daniel Craig as James Bond is quite simply fantastic -- vengeance is not easy to convey interestingly and can often be one note.He is subtle, tender,funny and deadly throughout.The Broccoli family better hold on to him!All the supporting cast are superb too with Rory Kinnear and Judi Dench bringing a precision to their work which gives the film another layer.David Arnold's score is powerful.The film itself a quality product and one of the best in the series with some surprising moments.Brilliant!
8/10
Second Thoughts
spookyrat11 April 2019
I have to admit, that over the years I've changed my thoughts about Quantum of Solace. Loving Casino Royale and the Daniel Craig - inspired Bond reboot, I was really looking forward to the follow-up, only to be initially disappointed, like so many others, with the frantic pacing and editing, especially of the all important action sequences.

Regarding those action set pieces, I must be getting used to the manner in which they're staged. These days, I find them pretty accomplished, although I don't deny the producers and director were obviously influenced by the success of the Bourne franchise in constructing them. But their breadth, scale and variety as seen in the movie are quite staggering. Whatever else it is and may be isn't, in my view, Quantum of Solace is one very good action movie. Savage hand to hand combat, metal-crunching car chases, bone-shaking boat chases where you almost swear you've been sprayed by salt water, aerial dog fights culminating in a breath-taking sky-dive sequence, not forgetting your traditional gun battles, this, the shortest of Bond movies, just about has it all.

It's certainly not flawless by any means. As inferred I can understand the criticisms concerning the rapid-fire editing, even if I've acquiesced towards it over the years. I believe there should have been a stronger introductory connection/mini-recap to the previous Casino Royale, rather than the void with which we have to deal. And I know after 22 films, directors do find the need to repeat themselves. But seriously did we really need a virtual recreation of the gold-painted murdered girl from Goldfinger, in oil, in this film? I also think there did need to be some clearer, perhaps slower-paced intervals of exposition, just to make the narrative more user-friendly. In Quantum, these episodes generally occur when Bond has got a drink in his mouth, or when he's communicating to his HQ, in the middle of one of those afore-mentioned chases.

However if you want to see Daniel Craig reinforce his nailing of the James Bond persona, if you want to appreciate some great interchanges between Bond and M, marvel at some brilliant location set-ups as well as excellent sets (eg MI-6) besides take-ing the opportunity to apprize the first sequel in the Bond franchise, Quantum of Solace just may be the movie for you.
1/10
Goodbye Mr Bond. We are neither shaken or stirred!
george-rolph20 February 2009
James Bond is in dire danger. Not from Russians, nor from Koreans, or any other International group of terrorists. The threat to bond comes from International Socialism and their stupid political correctness that infests everything like a plague. Bond is now facing the same stupidity. It will surely not be long before Bond is transformed into an environment loving Hippy homosexual, or even, a feminist lesbian getting her own back on the male race.

Groan!

Leaving that aside, this has to be the worst Bond film in years because of an incompetent director, terrible writing and a rubbish editor. The opening sequence, so vital to all James Bond movies, was ruined by blazingly fast cutting that leaves the viewer fearing an epileptic attack, even if they are not epileptic. Your eye wants to look away because following the action is impossible. Your brain just cannot cope with the quick fire images and sounds and make sense of what is happening on the screen. By the time your head recovers you have to readjust your mind to try and follow the story again.

Pretty soon you are introduced to the so-called villain. A two dimensional "nasty" with a history of problems from his childhood.

Oh Boy!

Then we are treated to a dialogue between the villain and the leader of the rebel forces that reeks of socialist political thinking about corrupt business corporations. O.K. We get it! Capitalism is bad now get off the soap box please! This is followed by a boat chase sequence that looks like it should be in a computer game. The movie goes downhill from here.

Bond has been a favourite for years because it focused on action and not second rate politics. It seems that all of that is changing and in the process it will kill Bond off. Maybe that is the idea? Forget this rubbish. It is nothing like Bond as Fleming made him. This is more like a left wing political activists idea of a character the rest of the world loves but they hate.

Ho Hum. Welcome to tedium and goodbye Mr Bond.
1/10
Shaky, not stirring
seanhimdb5 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like others who loved Casino Royale, I had high hopes for this one. The CR parkour sequence was stunning, the Origin story of Bond's first 00 mission fitted the genre wonderfully, the glib comment "Quite..." on his 2nd kill, and an explanation/origin for the gun-barrel sequence.

But this isn't a review of CR, sadly. I wanted to like QoS, but the shaky-cam stuff made me seasick. The point of shaky was, I thought, to fake a bunch of action because you haven't the budget for the stunt men to do it properly, like the swan dive off the dam at the start of Goldeneye.

I saw QoS from the back row of the cinema, and it wasn't far enough back. If ever a movie was made for watching on the back of an airplane seat, this is it.

Craig does a good 007, I think. Dench does a good M. Some of the plot was interesting, the idea that while the US could be fooled into running with the bad guys, the Brits (M in particular) wanted at least a second opinion, is a departure from the Bond franchise in which the CIA is always there with the cavalry when it's needed.

I really did want to like this movie, and I hope Craig returns as 007 with a different director and editor. And a budget big enough to include a steadicam and someone who knows how to use it.
1/10
Here lies James Bond 007. RIP
michaelhills21 November 2009
I love Bond. Ridiculously, passionately and unapologetically so. I've watched all of them, over and over. I bought them on Video, Laser Disc and DVD (twice). When Cubby Broccoli died and his daughter took over, with Pierce Brosnan, the series started well (with "Goldeneye"), but then steadily sank into clones of one another, with little individual character. With "Casino Royale" things looked brighter. A superb new Bond (ok he ran too much), a new imagining, a fresh start. Then came "Quantum of Solace". The worst directed Bond, EVER. Confusing actions scenes. Stupid script, and even Daniel Craig, who looked so good in "Casino", looks positively ugly in this. I watched it 3 times, and I still can't remember what the Bond girl looks like. I never thought I would say this, not even with the Brosnan films, but perhaps it's time to end the series. In the past the Bond film has been the leaders, now it had become the follower. Trying to mimic the irritating "shaking camera" action scenes so prevalent in cinema today. Sorry Barbara, you have not done justice to your father's extraordinary legacy, and that is to simply, and superbly entertain. Not only HAVE you messed with the formula, you have destroyed it.
3/10
I want my Bond back ...
Rat_2723 June 2011
James Bond seems to be on a serious decline, and this movie made it feel like more of a free-fall experience. Bond is supposed to casually and smoothly hook up with the most amazing women, and be unapologetic about it. He is supposed to have impressive gadgets and cool cars (he does show off the Martin Aston in the first scene, but then it's gone). He is supposed to have witty banter with Q, his Quartermaster. He is just supposed to be cool. I saw this in the theatre and felt horribly let down. Saw it again on cable and was reminded why I have seen every other Bond movie several times, but this one only twice. Someone neutered James Bond. Please please PLEASE find the jar with his balls and give them back. Sir Ian Flemming would be mortified if he knew what Barbara Broccoli had done to this franchise. ...
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An absurd and preposterous bore
cribyn4421 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I only caught up with this film on DVD, and was so glad not to have forked out precious money on a cinema seat to have seen this farrago of total nonsense. Apart from the film being absurd and preposterous all the way through, actually, its worst sin in my eyes was that it was all a total bore.

Reflecting more, and picking up a few points from other critical comments on IMDb, it struck me that all of the film-makers concerned - scriptwriters, producers, directors, and even some of the actors - must have a real contempt for the intelligence of the cinema-going film-watching public. Not once in the film was there any attempt to present the viewer with a coherent story line. When the audience was grudgingly granted a scene containing no more than a dozen lines of dialogue which barely hinted at that particular stage of the clearly non-existent plot, the viewer was then pummelled in the head with lots of irrelevant and absurd "action" set pieces, which actually had one rolling in the aisles at home with uncontrollable laughter at the utter stupidity of each of those exercises.

And then, just before the film makers thought that the audience might "just" then be wanting to know what the hell was going on with some "story" etc, they were whisked off to yet another exotic location for Daniel Craig to do his "okay, so it's Thursday, so I must be in Haiti", strutting around as his particular form of "acting"; or no, "it's Friday so we must be in Bolivia", behaving all the time in such a self-important manner as though every misbegotten viewer of this nonsense should somehow be admiring him! To be fair, Daniel Craig was good and threatening in his role as the would-be assassin priest in "Elizabeth".

That's another thing which really got me about this film. All the actors concerned seemed to take themselves far too seriously and self-importantly - cocky is the word, - just because they were in a "Bond" film. Pretentious, the lot of them! Seriously, this so-called "Bond" film should be laid to rest with the whole of the Bond film franchise so that we see no more of these useless films, under the heading, "R.I.P".
3/10
Bond Month #22: An Unbearable Viewing Experience, even with so much potential
Theflyace29 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the fantastic experience of watching Casino Royale, I expected something on the same level. I expect way too much from Bond I suppose. Quantum of Solace is a strange experience that would jar the senses of any audience member, even non-Bond fans.

Well let's look at the story that I thought had great potential. It picks up directly where Casino Royale left off, with Bond investigating an agent of an organization known as Quantum, which I think is the modern equivalent to SPECTER. This is some guy named Dominic Greene who tries to monopolize a desert country's water before trying to stage a coup-de-tat in said countries with hoarded water. But that's not the main story, its about M whining about Bond being plagued by revenge for the death of Vesper (SPOILER!!) Here's the first problem with the movie for me, the plot suffers from a complete lack of focus (and I'm not talking about the editing or camera-work either, I'll get to that later) Like I said, the story had great potential, but it is underdeveloped and the characterizations often times do not make any sense. Heck sometimes the logic of everything that plays out makes no sense at all. The aspect involving the water isn't all that interesting, and surprisingly, the revenge aspect isn't great either. Now, some people say that about Licence to Kill as well, but there you had a solid story and decent characterizations, but when they are simplified or not clear, it doesn't work as well.

The acting is actually the biggest saving grace of this movie, well for the most part. Craig still packs in a solid performance as Bond, giving a far more darker turn than in Casino Royale, but he still manages to incorporate the dry humor that worked very well in the last movie. Olga Kurylenko is amazing as Camille, and even the first Bond girl that Bond doesn't go to bed with all the way through the movie. The others are fine, but with the bad writing for the most part, they get lost and hopelessly confused so they seem odd and stupid.

Then there's the action and filming. Holy god this is the most poorly shot movie I have ever seen in my life. The camera is shaking to the point of seasickness, like Man of Steel, but is doesn't benefit from poor editing. A lot of the sots in this movie last either a half a second or a half a frame before the scene is over. Then there are random shots and edits that make zero sense and provides the reason why I say this is an unbearable experience for the eyes and ears. Actually, we get a very good car chase at the beginning of the film and a cool aerial battle between a jet and an old Douglas DC-3, that's always great to watch. But other than that there are few and far between great action sequences.

I've harped on this movie enough so I won't try to do anything more to it. But if I had to, I would recommend this one for one single viewing only. Is is the worst executed Bond film? Yes, yes it is. But does is have good things? On an occasion. Watch it once, but have vomit bags ready.

Now onto the next greatest return to Bond-form, and my favorite Bond film, Skyfall.
5/10
Muddled and shaky
anselmdaniel3 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This review contains spoilers.

Quantum of Solace is an action spy moyle that premiered in 2008. The movie is directed by Marc Foster and is based on James Bond by Ian Fleming. The movie's story is written by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade. The movie has Daniel Craig reprise the role of James Bond and stars Olga Kurylenko. The movie continues where Casino Royale left off and has James Bond trying to thwart a plot to stop the Quantum organization.

Quantum of Solace is an incredibly muddled movie. There are not many redeeming qualities about this movie. The movie meanders from plot point and can not keep a focused story. The movie starts off well with James Bond escaping with Mr White. The car chase is riveting to watch but then the plot becomes horribly convoluted. Plot points simply come and go but does not coalesce into a thorough line of thought.

Events and characters feel contrived. The action scenes are not good. The scenes frequently utilize quick cuts that do not help immerse the audience. These quick cuts only served to take me out of the experience. Outside of the opening chase scene, I am hard pressed to remember any interesting action scenes. Everything felt similar and not distinct.

Both Daniel Craig, and Olga Kurylenko, do not do a phenomenal job in the more. The performance is bland and it feels like the script is incredibly limiting on the lead actors. There is simply not much they do both drama and stunt wise.

Overall, Quantum of Solace is a mess. This movie has little redeeming qualities making it not recommended by me.

Grade: D
5/10
A huge disappointment
rich_mac005 November 2008
When I first saw the trailers for QOS I was not all that impressed. Yet, as usual, the hype and constant media coverage pulled me in. I have just watched the film today and while the excitement pre-movie was unbearable, the feeling afterwards was somewhat undesirable.

I would like to begin by criticising the intro. These scenes have always been the bread and butter of the first half-hour of any Bond Film before they start to really get going. This however was not. A full 5 minutes into the film, after a timid attempt at a car chase I was being tortured by Jack Black and Alesha Keys strangling a cat.

Secondly the film has no coherency, you are not pointed in the right directions as a viewer and so are being constantly forced to go over what has just happened in your head. QOS moves around far too much in the short space of time and the punter is left feeling cheated out of the gorgeous locations used in the film.

Thirdly, the lack of any real character development outside of Bond and Camille is frustrating.

In a nutshell the film moves to fast, relies to heavily on over complicated action scenes (which unlike the last film do not wow or surprise the viewer). There are to few of the Bond Institutions, no Q, gadgets, evil Bond girl or even the one liners, which are essential to any Bond. I realise the film is trying to distance itself from previous incarnations such as the tragic Die Another Day but it brushes dangerously close to losing all the characteristics that make it a Bond film. The plot is clumsy and many of the scenes are poorly executed from a screenplay point of view.

Finally, I have a personal gripe with Daniel Craig as Bond- he's simply not charismatic enough. All in all I rate 5 stars as it is watchable, just not memorable and I will not be paying any more money to see it at least. BRING BACK THE REAL BOND!!
3/10
Bond Reborn as 'Bourne' Falls Flat
erikgloor2 December 2008
Attention! Attention 'Quantum of Solace' screenwriters and director! James Bond is a worldly, charismatic, English gentleman spy who's in to his job and uses his wits to win hearts and defeat enemies. Jason Bourne is a regretful American man-boy of an assassin moping his way from one violent confrontation to another in search of a solution to his identity crisis and squishing anyone who tries to stop him.

Two entirely different characters.

Sure, it's always a good time at the movies to see your hero best one or more faceless goons by out-driving or out-fighting them a la the 'Bourne' series. And the second installment of the new James Bond franchise starring Daniel Craig certainly delivers in this department. Craig, too, is a fantastic choice for a new, Steve McQueen-esquire no-nonsense less-cute Bond, and the film does not suffer for lack of an appealing central character.

What 'Quantum of Solace' does suffer from, however, will keep you suffering throughout the film.

'Quantum,' in part, is a continuation of the story told in 'Casino Royale,' about some freakily cabal of rich jerks who were squeezing a British Secret Service Agent by ransoming her boyfriend and causing her to seduce Bond, betray him and ultimately kill herself over the whole affair. Sad, scary and personal. At one point in this previous film, Craig's Bond sits with her character in the shower as she tries to shake off an evening's hideous violence. It was a clean break from the impenetrably cool Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan's Bond-as-bimbo. The highly personal aspects of the 'Royale' movie provided a motor that drove its story and made you care who was gaming whom in a high stakes tale of cards, collusion and counter-espionage.

Nice little movie.

'Quantum,' by contrast, is as cool and impersonal a film as could be made. It unceremoniously drops us into the middle of some car-chase in Italy and never quite lets us catch up. Apparently, Bond is out to root out the aforementioned jerks and hopefully avenge the death of the aforementioned agent. He comes across some weird French fat-cat out to control world water markets or something and feed some girl to the wolves in the process. The girl, Olga Kurylenko's "Camille," is on a revenge quest herself and she and Bond team up a la pretty much every Bond flick you've ever seen. Who is Camille? What is she about? What drives her? Beyond a brief soliloquy laying out her motivations, we're given nothing to work with. Camille is like a Cliff's-notes version of a role. Melina, the girl-out-for-revenge character in 1981's 'For Your Eyes Only,' played gorgeously by Carol Bouquet, had a sensibility and an origin and we understood her. Her character had an arc in the film, if a small one. Camille is hot, but we never get to know her and end up as invested in her plight as we would the cover girl for next month's Maxim.

Bond proceeds to uncover a pack of rich weirdos belonging to the criminal ring for which the film is named. What are they up to exactly? It's hard to tell because mainly, we get one mindless, pounding action sequence after another, causing each to come off as more meaningless and forced than the last.

Bond annihilates everyone in his path in scenes that seem matched shot-for-shot from the Bourne films. But traditionally, it's Bond's wits, not his physique that saves the day. When Connery's or Moore's Bond was having their clock cleaned by a more physically imposing henchman, they'd typically devise some clever means of turning their foe's advantage against him. Think Oddjob from 'Goldfinger' being electrocuted by reaching for the metal-brimmed hat he uses to wing people to death. It would have been possible to update the Bond character whilst retaining his brains-over-brawn M.O., but again, this new 007 franchise seems to think Jason Bourne is the new standard. The older films knew there's always a bigger bad-ass.

And as much as the violence is ramped up in 'Quantum,' the sex is dialed way down. Watching Bond spar with and seduce his leading ladies is half the fun of the 007 films but the ravenously beautiful Camille gets not even a flirt! Bond's one (yes, ONE) sexual conquest in 'Quantum' is essentially an office romance. Watching this 40-something Bond seduce a 20-something colleague with a non-committal one-line lame-o ploy free of humor, joy, or even innuendo was dopey, false, and vaguely incestuous. As dispatched by Judy Dench's new, motherly 'M' to assist Bond, the girl came off as his sister and their tryst as wholly perfunctory. As Bond's love-life goes, this new franchise, again, takes its cues from the Bourne series: joyless romances with colleagues -- Julia Stiles's Nicky -- and a wary but caring mother figure in the form of a superior officer -- Joan Allen's Pamela Landy. The fun and the life of Bond films is completely cut out of the 'Quantum' offering, making it loathsomely sterile and cold.

It can sometimes be hard to have faith in a character that has been as roundly lampooned as James Bond has. The temptation to copy a similar and bankable character that's getting a lot of play lately understandably arises when a solution seems unclear and when the box office potential is paramount. But the creators of 'Quantum of Solace' could have used their imaginations to rescue the Bond character, update him, and restore him to his rightful place as the gold standard for movie spies by highlighting or improving the positive aspects of this legendary fictional figure and throwing out some of the sillier stuff. They might have given us a fuller Bond who still gets the ladies and still digs his job.

Instead, they just hacked Jason Bourne.

What chumps.

This movie review by Erik Gloor
This is not Bond
farkomeister25 March 2009
Craig is by far the worst Bond to ever grace the big screen, even worse than Dalton, who was considered the worst until now, or Lazenby, who, by the way, is one of my favorites. Craig does not fit the role - he is not suave enough, not gentlemanly enough, and sadly, not British enough (for one, he needs to put on a tiny amount of weight). He could be a villain's henchman, but not James Bond. Thank you very much.

And, what have they done to the franchise? No Vodka Martini? No fast cars and gadgets? Bond shooting guns like crazy and killing everyone he meets? Complete lack of the trademark Bond irony? Love and revenge? Almost continuous chase and fight sequences? Daniel Craig? Quantum of Solace? This is not the James Bond that we have come to love over the past 5 decades. Broccoli and Fleming must be turning in their graves.

Hollywood has developed a notion of humanizing every hero/super-hero. It has worked at times, especially with Batman and, to some extent, with Hunt. But, unfortunately, it has not worked with Bond, and we are left with a complete mess. Take away the bat-mobile, and there's no Batman. Take away the Vodka Martini and there's no Bond.

Casino Royale had at least some signature Bond features, but Foster has deprived QoS of everything that makes Bond. You can't reboot a series and create an entirely new one.

QoS would be fine for a MI sequel, or any other action series or even a stand alone action movie. But not for Bond. The movie was entertaining enough, but it was entirely disappointing for a Bond fan like myself. Can we get the real Bond back?
5/10
A lot of action but little else
kdtan20005 November 2008
There were a lot of action sequences in this movie.. from the beginning vehicle chase through to the end.

however, they lacked the really big stunt impact, of previous bond outings.. and a lot of it was really just chasing and fighting and jumping over buildings.

judi dench and daniel craig did commendably well.. but that was about it.

the ending, was a real let down and very anti climactic. there were also a lot of loose ends that were not followed up.

all in all, i did not think this was anywhere near as good as CR.
51 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Action packed but lacking a lot in emotional involvement ...
fantasyescapist5 November 2008
Note: This doesn't give away any vital plot revelations so it's free of spoilers as far as I know. I hate it when people spoil films for me so I try not to do that to others - only fair isn't it?

The sequel to what I think was the brilliant Casino Royale just really disappointed for me and comes nearly top of my list of most disappointing hyped blockbusters of the the year(along with Cloverfield and Indy 4). Why? I hear fans yell at me as I dare to speak against such a popular brand as Bond? Well, it's all flash and not much substance to be honest.

Acting: Craig does his usual best as the character, but this time, his Bond is a rather one-note killing machine - I was shocked in one particular scene seeing Bond treat a supposed male friend in such an uncaring way, 'he doesn't care' he said. Well I did and it makes Bond look pretty heartless. It's hardly Craig's fault though, as the script dictated this and it seems to mess up the characterisation and very essence of what Bond is in such a sorry, shameful way - showing more of his gritty heart would've helped tons to show at least some remorse for some actions he did. We need to believe he's a 3D human being even though he's completely fictional if the film wants to be brilliant.

The new Bond girl Camille is a bit stiff at first but OK after she settles into the atypical role (she's especially good in a scene towards the end when she's surrounded by flames and scared stiff as we learn why this is so).

Agent Fields in in it too briefly to judge but I didn't really like her obviously put-on 'clipped' posh London accent.

The villain(without a white cat or some sort of creepy disability) instead of the usual stuff is fairly normal apart from his flash of a maddening, disturbing stare at moments. He's also good but not the best villain I've seen. He could've been written better.

Judi Dench's M is good in her few scenes as she does her best to sort out Bond's situation.

Pacing and Plot: It's a fine running time, but the main problem is the haphazard script and plot - it just doesn't make a lot of sense nor is there a sense of real cohesion and purpose as such. This revenge mission is filled with elements that don't make a lot of sense nor are they fully explored satisfyingly enough(like Bond's inner thoughts).

I sort of worked out what the title meant by consulting a dictionary after I'd seen the film at home. Things like Quantum are mentioned along with oil but it went through one ear and didn't register. Maybe this so-called 'Quantum' helped Bond to finally relieve his grief over Vesper? I dunno, it's anyone's guess. Maybe the scriptwriters were as mind boggled as I was and hoped flashy stunts would cover this up?

Cinematography: It's shot well and the stunts thrill with some obvious nods to Bourne in at least three action scenes but a film should work on all levels to be outstanding, however

Fast cut editing technique, dangerous stunts and endless action pieces all make it entertaining but this misses out on the gadgets and witty one liners that make Bond ... well Bond. Take away the references to MI6 and it's hardly any different to your regular action blockbuster.

Music: Argh, dear Lord I hated the Another Way to Die song played in the beginning with the silhouetted figures in the desert for the standard Bond opening - it has to have one of the worse choruses after the potential in the intro for the song itself. The score is fairly good though.

Overall: An 'avenging Vesper' tale following on from Casino Royale that's not really based on any of the official books(as they've apparently exhausted them) and is almost entirely a newly thought-up storyline from the minds of the scriptwriters.

With all it's thrilling, high octane, daredevil action pieces and various locations, it's a cold, brutal Bond presented without crucial emotional involvement - we just don't get to see more of what's going on in his head. There seems to be more of these exciting yet generic action scenes at the cost of it not really having enough of a heart at it's center to make the audience care more about the characters.It's just another blockbuster action film with the charm and essence of Bond missing.

The plot confused the heck out of me along with the title that still doesn't make that much sense. With a reference to Goldfinger but a lack of solid characterisation in the script, it's a hollow, disappointing affair. This could and should've been so much better.

It seemed to anger a teen male audience member so much that he swore loudly just as the closing credits came up and left. I think it's safe to say from my point of view, Casino Royale is a better film.
7/10
The action covers a paper thin script
dbborroughs17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Picking up where Casino Royale left off Bond is on the trail of the organization behind Le Chiffre (villain in Casino) as well as seeking to get revenge for the death of Vesper Lynde. The main bad guy is Dominic Greene of the Green Corporation with ties to something larger. Greene is buying up land all over the world for some unknown reason. Everyone thinks oil but there is something else afoot.

Extremely well made, with stunning set pieces this is a movie that starts and goes from almost the instant the film begins. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good, in that it keeps you watching to see what is going to happen next. Bad in that it conceals plot that is decidedly less then detailed (as are some of the characters). There is no sense of a bigger picture, its just Bond charging on. Its not bad, but its not great either. The film, in its way feels like a side story or middle part to something larger since the main plot only serves to let us know that some large menace is in the wings.

I do like the film, but I'm really torn between loving the action (even if it feels Bourne-ish) and feeling blah about the plot. Still reservations aside its worth a popcorn and a soda, so if you get the chance do see it.

somewhere around 7 out of 10.
1/10
Quantum leap into the dumpster.
Egg_MacGuffin16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If I wasn't so bored, I might have felt violated by this awful suckfest.

Seriously...who greenlights a script this bad? I'll give you a quick excerpt of the "plot": Bond gets to the hotel and kills the geologist, gets the briefcase and walks out just in time for the car to pull up. He gets in and the girl pulls a gun on him. He gets out just in time to hop on the motorcycle. Follows the car to the dock just in time to overhear the conversation and see the boat take off just in time. Follows on motorcycle and drives off the ramp of a boat that was lined up just in time for him to land in a powerboat. Fights off baddies and in the process, the girl gets KO'ed just in time for Bond to reach land and drop her off so he can get to the airport just in time to see the villains take off, etc.

Notice the excessive usage of the phrase "just in time".

There's even a spot where Bond has left a party and is driving in the middle of the desert where he just so happens to come across a man who just so happens to sell Bond his plane. Bond flies the plane for less than 5 minutes and just so happens to get shot out of the air. Bond and the girl (did they even say her name more than once?) open the parachute just in time - oops, sorry. About a minute too late. Sorry, but if you open a parachute 12 feet from the ground, you're dead. I don't care if you're James Bond. You're dead. So anyway, they just so happen to land directly above a sinkhole which just so happens to have the most easily accessible exit in the history of any place where any character was ever trapped in film history, and then just so happen to end up in a spot where they can easily recognize the villain's plan (which was over AN HOUR into the film - didn't know the purpose of any of the action up to that point, which made it tedious and boring), etc, etc.

Notice the excessive usage of the phrase "just so happens".

There is absolutely no plot to this film whatsoever. There are no characters. There is no dialogue. There are no relationships. There is no originality at all. None. Everything about this film is one - yes, ONE dimensional. Not two, and definitely not three. Just one.

This is action porn...but even the action sucks.

It opens with a car chase where one dark vehicle is shooting at another dark vehicle, so you can't tell what the hell is going on, who is in which car, who is shooting at Bond and why they are shooting at him. It makes no sense to a viewer. Neither does any of the action that follows. Bond leaves bodies in his wake, never even encountering a real challenge. Coincidences move him from place to place and stuff blows up and people shoot guns in the process. That is this movie.

Bond doesn't struggle at all. The villain's henchman is supposed to be the brawn to the villain's brain. Look at Odd Job and Goldfinger. Here, we have this guy with a flo-be bowl cut who gets tripped by a girl in a cocktail dress. And the main baddie himself looks like a young Roman Polanski...and the members of his super-secret organization that nobody knows anything about just so happen to conveniently sport little Q lapels, making them so easy to identify. Smart.

Even action porn needs to be exciting. There have to be reversals. Watch the truck chase at the end of The Road Warrior and you'll see more reversals in that one 10 minute scene than this entire movie. That is why that scene is great and this movie sucks. Both have cars driving fast and people shooting one another and things blowing up. Hint: THAT IS NOT WHY PEOPLE WATCH MOVIES! People watch movies for an experience. We want to see reversals in action, character relationships develop and change, a plot that actually makes sense. We want to see characters develop beyond a thuggish menace before they go and wreak havoc. We want to see this person that we now care about actually struggle and fight for victory. We want to be able to follow what is going on, in terms of story and visuals. You can't do that if the camera is swaying violently and cutting every 3/8ths of a second and the main plot isn't revealed until a majority of the movie is over.

This is perhaps the worst movie I have seen in a decade. An absolutely epic failure on every front, including the future of film-making, which appears to be heading toward a depression of it's own if a film like this, completely void of quality, gets made.

The cinematic apocalypse has begun.

PS: Who the f--k edited this movie?! I want to track this person down and murder them with my bare hands in their own home in front of his or her children. My 5 year-old dog could have done a better job. Is there a bet going on with you and Paul Greengrass as to who will be the first to make a film that will literally cause people's heads to explode from an overload of underprocessed information...or do you just suck that bad? Quit your job immediately and find something that you're actually good at.
8/10
Best Bond
richardholder10011 July 2018
Massively underrated, the story's pacy, well written with great dialogue. The action is the best of any Bond, beautifully filmed and engaging. Far better than the yawn fest of Skyfall (massively overrated). A very good film.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"Another way to die. Shoot 'em, bang bang!"
majikstl26 March 2009
You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film and how QUANTUM OF SOLACE rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: QUANTUM OF SOLACE: A bad title? No, a terrible title. And naming the evil organization that Bond is trying to uncover "Quantum" doesn't help. Now "Quantum of Evil" would be a nifty title, because, really, what solace can be found in organized crime. Whatever – is it even worth discussing? 0 points.

Pre-Credit Teaser: A long and chaotic car chase along the Italian countryside opens the film, but accomplishes little beyond destroying Bond's Astin Martin. It is elaborately staged, but the rapid cutting and maddening pace makes it more confusing than exciting. (Note to director: If you are staging a car chase, choose cars that look different, so that viewers can follow the action better. Or better yet, edit for clarity, with pace and rhythm, not just unending flashes of violence. Great action scenes are based on suspense and dramatic counterpoint, not just mindless speed.) 4 points.

Opening Credits: Gone are the elegant and/or sexy and/or silly montages of the classic Bond films, replaced by computer generated images of deserts and slow-motion bullets; it is slick in execution, but amateurish and mindless in concept. 5 points.

Theme Song: Entitled "Another Way to Die" (which would be a better title for the entire film), the opening song is a jittery little tune with a vague rap flavor to it. Unfortunately, it suffers from nonsense lyrics that have no flow, tell no story or even relate to the movie itself. Still, it might have worked okay had it been performed with a slinky sexuality as a pseudo love ballad, rather than in a nursery rhyme style by Alicia Keys and the composer Jack White. The song improves with repeated listenings, but still misses the mark. 7 points.

"Bond, James Bond": Daniel Craig doesn't even utter Bond's signature phrase in this film, which is just as well because he is barely playing James Bond at all. Bond's witticisms and dry, ironic sense of humor are nowhere to be heard in QUANTUM, with Craig mumbling in a lifeless monotone behind a face that rarely changes from a grim mask of cold indifference. For all their attempts to make Bond into a "real man," all they have done is make him seem less human. Craig drains Bond of all of his humor and humanity and makes one long for the days of Sean Connery. Heck, he makes you long for Timothy Dalton. 2 points.

Bond Babes: As the sacrificial Bond Girl #2, Gemma Arterton (as Strawberry Fields), is given little opportunity to be sexy, but manages to be alluring anyway, in a crisp, professional fashion. But other than being easily seduced by Bond and just as casually disposed of by the film, she has little to do. Olga Kurylenko as Camille, a feisty femme fatale, manages to inject a bit of honest energy into the film, though her repeated attempts to hook up with the film's villain, even as he repeatedly tries to killer her, makes her come off as being a bit stupid. But then, how else could Bond repeatedly show up to save her? Olga is a strong character and is nicely played by Kurylenko, but the clumsy screenplay betrays her at every turn. 9 points.

Bond Villain: Looking like Howdy Doody's evil twin, Mathieu Amalric plays Dominic Greene, a philanthropic environmentalist, whose environmentally friendly projects are a disguise for his fiendish plot to corner the world's water supply. It is not one of the series most believable plots. As for Amalric, he plays the role with a subtle nastiness that is a couple of notches below the point where the character would actually be colorful. Supposedly, the filmmakers didn't want Greene to have any distinctive gimmicks or characteristics that would make him larger than life, the better to show how banal evil can be. Instead, they have made him smaller than life, and showed just how uninteresting evil can be. 5 points.

Bond Baddies: The days of Oddjob, Jaws, Baron Samedi and Nick Nack are apparently long gone. Instead we get nameless, faceless stunt men who all look alike and act alike and indulge in elaborately choreographed fights scenes that rely on hysterical editing. Boring. 0 points.

Sinister Plot: Meant to be a direct sequel to CASINO ROYALE, the plot line – as they repeatedly have to tell us – concerns Bond's attempt to avenge the death of his last lover Vesper Lynn. Just how that ties into the rest of the film is never made clear, coherency not being the film's strong suit. 5 points.

Production values: Like all Bond films, the action takes place at various locations around the world. Unlike other Bond films, you get no sense of having been at various locations around the world. There is no attempt get Bond to interact with the local atmosphere, only screen titles announcing that the setting has changed to another place. This is the shortest Bond film of them all, apparently because director Marc Forster decided to cut out anything that slowed the action: humor, atmosphere, character development, romance, etc. As a result, the film is almost as generic as it is anemic. This might not be the worst Bond film of all time, but it certainly is the dullest. 2 points.

Bonus Points: No Q. No Moneypenny. No extra points.

Summary: The film does the barest minimum to get the job done.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 39 points out of 100
1/10
Big Disappointment after "Royale"
ernesto6617 November 2008
This has been a year of huge disappointments for me at the movies. "Dark Knight" depressed me, "Crystal Skull" made me want to knife George Lucas, "Mamma Mia" to poke out my eardrums... And the dozen previews before this one made me want to stop going to the theater at all.

The director and editor of "Quantum" obviously had no idea what makes an action sequence work, what pace is, how to tell a story, or how to make an audience care what happened to these characters. Shots during the action fly by so fast you have no idea what's going on or even where characters are in relation to each other in each scene. However the exposition all drags by so slowly that you lose interest in even trying to untangle the plot. Not that the plot itself is so interesting. Far removed from the careful character work and set-up of "Casino Royale", "Quantum" is perfunctory and Bourne-by-the-numbers. It could just as easily have been Craig's last Bond; his "View to a Kill" or "Die Another Day", the one that kills off his slice of the franchise and makes the audience want to see someone else take over.

The worst offense for me, speaking as a fan who has loved almost all the previous Bonds, is that "Quantum" is so totally lacking in any sense of fun. This relaunched Bond doesn't enjoy what he's doing, as others before him have, and doesn't seem likely to grow into a man who will. He has no rapport with the other characters, least of all M or the superdull villain, and his motivation to hop from location to location -revenge - is so one-note that I started to miss the complexity of Roger Moore's later work.

If nothing else, "Quantum" should be huge selling point for new Blu-Ray players; I don't doubt it will drive people into stores to buy the newly re-released Bond collection so they can remind themselves what made this series so fantastic in the first place.
6/10
Why build up a "tent pole" and then knock it down?
dcold15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watched this new Bond with interest while I was in the theater (mostly because of Craig and Dench) but the longer I'm out, the more I hate it. This was not a Bond movie. Why spend over 40 years building a franchise and then knock it's feet out from under it. There is too much to comment on in full paragraphs so here's the list:

Bond is not Wolverine or Terminator. The things that happened to Bond in this movie would kill any man...let's keep it real.

Along those lines: No man can stay awake for that long and not start hallucinating and have walking sleep moments (which could have been interesting)

NO MORE SHAKY CAM! Bond fight scenes should be thrilling, not a blur of skin, metal and shattering glass. Why spend all that money setting up shots and then not let the audience see it?

Bond would not dump a fellow agent/friend in a dumpster. At least he could have made a funeral pyre out of it.

Why oh why do we have soooo many bad guys/enemies/sub-plots? Bolivian dictators, French mercenaries, Quantum group(Inc.)head honchos, knife wielding geologists?, turn-coat CIA agents, turn-coat British agents, bad boyfriends?, bad fathers (that still have to be avenged???), Alpha Romero driving bad guys, fighter plane pilots, etc. etc.

Why would the agency send a secretary to stop one of their wildest agents from leaving town? And how did that same secretary have time to write a "run" note when she was so busy dying?

Why was this mousy French guy any match for Bond? He was wearing freaking loafers!

Why would Bond just sit there in a burning room contemplating suicide when he just ran and jumped through flames to get there?

Why can't Bolivians trace the water back and take out the dam with sledgehammers?

Couldn't the plot had a little more dastardly...like the mercenary was going to poison the world's drinking water so his supply would become liquid gold? Not just dry up a region in Bolivia so you can charge "twice as much" as the dictator was paying before???

Oh, well.

Let's get back to the old Bond movies. I actually don't mind Craig as Bond but these bad plots and blurry direction are ruining my favorite movie treat.
6/10
Bond Needs to Lighten Up
evanston_dad27 November 2008
Let's get it out of the way and answer the question everyone wants to know the answer to: Daniel Craig's sophomore outing as James Bond is not as good as "Casino Royale."

I've never been a James Bond fan, and "Casino Royale" was really the first one I've ever liked. So I'm not comparing "Quantum of Solace" or Daniel Craig to any of the other Bonds. On its own terms, "Solace" just isn't that much fun. It's certainly fast, and it has plenty of rapid cut action sequences that films like this seem to require. But it also has a brutal, dogged quality to it, and there isn't anything here that you haven't seen done a hundred times (notably in the recent Bourne movies, which have more intriguing story lines to along with their well-orchestrated action sequences) and done better.

Craig is still refreshingly scrappy when compared to Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, but he's also turned Bond into a rather boring character, more terminator than international man of mystery.

Grade: B
8/10
Less touchy feely, more bangy bangy
neil-4766 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you bump into a stranger who says, "I've never seen a Bond film, but I hear such good things about the Daniel Craig reboot that I've decided to make Quantum Of Solace my first Bond movie," then talk them out of it, as a matter of urgency. This is not because QoS is a bad film, it's because it has the wrong title.

Don't get me wrong, I like the title Quantum Of Solace. It's a Fleming original, it's miles better than the Die Today, Never Tomorrow titles of the Brosnan era, Quantum is a decent name for the shadowy organisation which now fills SPECTRE's shoes, and the three words very aptly refer to the small comfort which Bond derives from the events of this film.

But it's still the wrong title. The film should have been called Casino Royale Part 2.

It's widely known that QoS picks up within a few moments of Bond shooting Mr White at the end of Casino Royale, and I think that's absolutely fine. But this is the first Bond which doesn't stand alone. My hypothetical stranger is going to be saying "Hang on - who's Vesper? Perhaps they'll explain later on who she is." And later on, that same stranger will be saying, "Who is this Mathis bloke? Why is he angry at Bond for having him tortured? Perhaps they'll explain later on." But there is never an explanation. For that part of the audience which has seen Casino Royale - and let's be fair, that's going to be a sizeable percentage - this poses no problem. But for those who come to this movie cold, there will be a lot of questions which will remain unanswered.

There is more action here than there was in Casino Royale, and I had a problem with a lot of it. Moviewatchers don't always realise that action sequences need a strong sense of geography. If A is running to intercept B at an angle of 50 degrees then, if A finally arrives at a different angle, or from the other side, the audience is disoriented (without always understanding why). The lessons of the Bourne franchise have clearly been taken on board (there is one sequence which is a virtual rerun of the Tangier chase in the third Bourne film), but the excessive closeup work and hyperkinetic, frenetic editing and choreography mean that it is often difficult to keep track of who is doing what to whom and where. Contrast the wonderfully laid out free running sequence from Casino Royale.

The story steers away from the small scale intimacy of Casino Royale back towards worldwide power games: thankfully, we are still a million miles away from kidnapping space capsules, satellite dishes disguised as lakes, invisible cars etc.

The bit players are all fine. Olga Kurylenko, in particular, looks good and acquits herself well.

Craig puts in another sterling performance as Bond. Having let his guard down in Casino Royale, Bond is now closely protecting the open wound left by Vesper's betrayal. QoS shows how he deals with this and, perhaps, how he begins to heal. Again, Craig brings more depth to Bond than any actor before him.

By far the best thing in this film is Judi Dench's M. Given more to do than in any previous film, M shows how she got to the position she holds. Politically acute, on top of her job even when things are going badly wrong, and always giving deep thought to exactly where Bond stands, Miss Dench's M delivers, both as head of MI6 and as a human being.

The ending - the entire closing sequence - is simply great, with an element of class I never thought I would see in a Bond film.

This is a worthy successor to Casino Royale - not quite as good, but still very good - and I enjoyed it greatly.

Edit following second viewing:

QoS rewards rewatching - it doesn't drag anywhere. I have no reason to change what I said above, but I'll add a few comments.

One concerns the location captions (Siena, London, Port au Prince Haiti etc.). These are introduced with individual fonts which are designed to be appropriate to the specific location, and are often seemingly integrated into the establishing location shot (ie. "London" appears to be a nameplate set into a road). I can understand the artistic/design concept behind this, and it's definitely a different way of approaching it, but I found it really distracting. Personally, I like a constant simple font occupying the same place on the screen, so that you realise what you're seeing each time.

Bond makes quips, but they're not funny and they're not meant to be. I liked them a lot.

I was irritated by the pageant in Siena. Its only purpose was to introduce a further obstacle in the chase sequence, and the constant intercutting between the chase in the sewers and the pageant above only served to further obscure a sequence which was already difficult to follow.

The interplay between Bond and Mathis is excellent.

I couldn't believe that the CIA section chief could rise to section chief and still be such a complete ar$e.

I was also puzzled about the hotel in the climactic sequence. Who on earth would build an enormous, state-of-the-art, hotel in the middle of the Bolivian desert? A hotel, incidentally, which plays host to meetings of dictators, corrupt police chiefs, purveyors of international chicanery, and their respective entourages - but which has no other clientèle whatsoever? And is serviced by a staff comprising precisely one chambermaid? And how come a structure which appears to be constructed entirely out of concrete burns like cardboard doused in gasoline?

But, hey, it's a Bond film - blowing stuff up is part of the genre! Stop being so picky!
1/10
New Bonds license to kill should be revoked permanently.
neacorp1 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New Bond is so horrible you will go for the evil geniuses to kill him. Unfortunately here there are no evil engineer geniuses, only rich snobs buying the world. Why drop Connerys "no matter what happens I will always hit on every girl in the room" and "check out my gadgetry" playboy appeal and change it with the new Batman "no charisma, no soul, only vengeance"? Who are the creators kidding? He is a frigid workaholic obsessed on revenge. I don't even remember what was so special about the dead girl anyway. Other Bonds would have just found a new girl like they always do, but not this moron.

Like the new Batman, the first movie was a shocker, the second has failed to shock and we saw junk.

The fact that in the first 10 minutes you get 2 chase scenes between an introduction song is enough to tell you this movie is... em… technically here any bad word will do. The entire move is like Bond is the ONLY agent MI6 has.

Obviously doomed police officers. Overboard computers with big flashy screens, incapable of passing firewalls. Rich cars on poor streets. Stupidest tailing I ever saw. Reckless boat riding and much, much more. All this is mixed with 5 minute characters, leaving you asking "Who are these people?" All who I can recognize are Bond, the girl, Green (environmentalist? oh come on!) and M. And all Bond does is run, ride and fight.

The worst is that scenes change every 3-4 seconds (sometimes from 2 to 10 seconds). Just count, you will never get to 20. This is confusing because we have to figure out where we are and what is happening. Confusing and gives a headache. Because of this I never could concentrate on the dialogs and info. The movie is full of pointless scenes and talking, without witch things might have smoothed out.

Some things are just out of place. The girl covered in oil is a cheap rip-off from Goldfinger. Unoriginal, same position, same shoot angle. Felix is completely a background character. I failed to notice him in the first movie at all. And why do modern villains have modern abstract art and monotone rooms with much free space? Can't afford wallpaper, pot plants and a bookshelf with books or DVDs? You can't work, recline or even live in such environment.

You can't let kids watch this violence and dating to this is like harassment. I miss SPECTRE. Bond and Batman had a nice century, but with these remakes they are as good as dead.
1/10
quantum of crap
louaguilar17 November 2008
I have seen bad James Bond movies. I have seen Bond fight a midget in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, pigeons doing double takes in MOONRAKER, a villain flapping his arms trying to fly in MOONRAKER, Bond hanging from a swinging firetruck ladder while making cartoon sounds in A VIEW TO A KILL, and a middle-aged Bond exchanging cringe-worthy sexual quips with a middle-aged Madonna in DIE ANOTHER DAY. But no Bond film has ever been as unpleasant, distasteful, headache-inducing (in every action scene) and witlessly bad as QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

It begins with the worst pre-credits sequence in the entire series, and there have been some awful ones. A jumble of tight camera angles, frenetic movements and rapid cutting are meant to give the viewer the impression that an exciting car chase is in progress through an Alpine tollway but instead completely detaches us from the mess on screen. This segues into the worst credits sequence accompanied by the worst song in the series.

Now I can take a gritty hard-boiled Bond, and Daniel Craig is very good. But a charmless monotone Bond trudging through two of the poorest nations on the planet after a laughably lame little French villain who can't even dispose of his ex-mistress, partly due to a Jim Carrey lookalike henchman who's literally tripped up by Bond's female assistant then wears a neck brace for the duration of the movie, these things just exhaust one. Sean Connery's Bond would have shot "Dominick Greene" before the opening credits on the way to fight Goldfinger, Largo, Blofeld or some real badass villain. And after spying in Haiti and Bolivia, I expected Bond to go to Darfour next for some more pleasant scenery.

You would think you can escape the sheer inanity of the plot, the phony action, the Opra-esquire oppressive mood, the horrible settings, and the lousy character support by enjoying the requisite Bond girls. Sorry but there are none. Well there are two pretty women who alternately hang around the droopy Bond sharing no chemistry or seductive charm with him. Bond only perfunctorily sleeps with one of them, not even bothering to charm her, before resuming his confusing dreary mission and pathetic moping with girl number two.

In one of the many nonsensical sequences, Bond finds M and four British Secret Service agents in his hotel room. M orders her men to escort Bond back to London. After Bond demolishes the four and escapes, M tells a colleague that she trusts Bond and will stand by her agent, suggesting that Bond proved his loyalty by beating up her men.

The movie made 70-million dollars opening weekend on the good will from CASINO ROYALE, which although mediocre was like THUNDERBALL compared to this film. The producers must be patting themselves for their good judgments. But if there is any artistic justice, the next installment's box-office will suffer for this atrocity and die another day.
4/10
Worst Directed Bond EVER!!!
zterrell18 November 2008
Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on action scenes and then flush 90% of it down the toilet? This is the question I asked when the 2nd Bourne movie came out. The fight scenes featured either the star and the bad guy or a wrestler and the gay off of Will and Grace rolling around. We bought the first Bourne movie because we got to see the action. Nope, didn't buy the second and never even went to the third. This will be the first Bond movie we won't buy either. We had our daughter try to film a family softball game with a 8MM camera and it looked like the opening chase scene in this Bond movie. Damn! she should have gone to director's school. Look at the money they are paying some slob to film an action movie as poorly as she did our game--and no, they hadn't invented the new cameras that reduce jiggling back then. I give it 4 stars for the scenes we could watch...and that's being generous.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Where am I?
kgprophet5 May 2012
This movie tries to outdo too much. It is "The Bond Identity" on adrenaline. But that is really to it's detriment. This is immediately evident in the opening car chase. Every shot is so split second, that exploding cars and trucks become meaningless, almost a parody of itself. I mean, come on, you spend the time to shoot this sequence, give the audience a chance to feel what it was like. This movie is far too jumpy. It reminds me of the Michael Bay syndrome. His movies need to cut every half second because if it ever slowed down, you would catch on that you are actually watching something dumb. That being said, there are a mix of good action sequences and just dumb ones. Bond motorcycles over three boats and jumps into another one to chase after the villain - all in stride like it was well choreographed. It's just too easy for Bond to slip in and out of the villain's lair without a scratch.

Then there's the weak script writing, where Judi Dench has to show up in all the convenient moments to keep the plot going. Doubly so for the very last scene, which wraps up everything way too conveniently. Literally, she just pops in from nowhere, any spot on the planet. There is also the same complaint with too nebulous of a evil crime syndicate or what have you. Then there is a relatively stupid finale in a pretty lame looking location.

One thing I will hand to the cinematography, the action unit director knows that you can shoot exciting action sequences without the use of shaky cam. Let this be a lesson to future action filmmakers.
5/10
Disappointed Bond Fan
andy-197821 March 2009
I waited till the dust settled before watching this Bond. I thought I would wait an savour the new gadgets and action packed adventures of James and his team. This was the most dull bond I have ever seen. I have watched it once and will give it another go to see it I missed the glitz of the usual Bond franchise. Daniel Craig is a great Bond and actor. The rest of the cast was well put together. What was missing was the fantasy of Bond. Growing up with watches that propel ropes across roofs. Cars with bombs which drive across lakes, and the most coolest boats on earth at him disposal. The bond hand none of it. I have watched the old Bond movies dozens of times and will continue watching them not getting the slightest bit bored. I got incredibly bored. I hate to say that because I am the biggest fan. I hope the next one take the lessons of this Bond and listen to the die hard bond fan.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
THe Gloomiest Bond Film Ever.
sombuddha-kundu14 January 2009
From a Bond Film we expect lot of action scenes, chivalry and a good dose of chauvinistic humor. Quantum of Solace offers only on the story front an intellectually simulating service. However good a story is, a Bond film is ultimately supposed to be lots of fun. In this title from the very beginning Bond is in a very sombre mood and throughout the film this environment of gloom pervades.

Some people may like this but for me a Bond film is quintessentially to reflect lots of fast cars, babes and roller-coasting action. Even the action scenes although shows lots of promise individually, falls flat with out the Bond one-liners at the end. In the end a very gloomy and in in some cases severe cases of autophobia.

We want our Bond back not this self-doubting killer on the loose. 5/10
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
QoS = the prescription of visual torture, to induce violent retching in its viewing audience
CelluloidRehab1 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale hinted at the resurgence of the Bond character, through emotional plot points & character development, diminishing the use of gimmicks, gadgets & high jinks and the use of more realism in action sequences (a.k.a. the Bourne effect). I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale. If the ridiculous title of this movie hasn't already given away its caliber, I will. It STINKS. Worst Bond movie ever! This movie makes me long for the Roger Moore days, when at least you could laugh at the ridiculousness. I would rather watch the non-Broccoli & aged Bond of Never Say Never Again than QoS. QoS is thin in every conceivable category except boredom, where there is plenty to go around.

The movie picks up about 3 minutes after the end of Casino Royale and puts us right in the middle of a Bond getaway through the serpentine roads of the Italian countryside. The usual stuff occurs; cars crash into one another, cars get shot, cars fall off cliffs, etc. We are then presented with a major plot point: there is a secret organization that's controlling everything and has infiltrated even MI6 and CIA.

We don't really explore that dangerous avenue much, as the movie is more interested in Bond's revenge goals (who is responsible for Vespa's death), Camille's revenge goals (paying back her father's killer), Greene's plot to create a drought in Bolivia for a nefarious scheme (why Bolivia??) and the CIA/MI6 double dealings with sketchy individuals/groups. Eggs are broken, omelets are made.

Although this movie is suppose to be Bond's closure in regards to Vespa, it doesn't actually answer much in the way of that back story and can be easily skipped. We need a whole movie to tell us that Vespa was duped by her N. African lover? It was kind of obvious from Casino Royale. There is little plot that actually makes sense as things become tediously confusing. A plot tool I like to call "double-dealing the double-deal" scenario.

Who needs plot when you have action, right? That is usually the case unless every scene reminds you of another movie (Bourne trilogy) or when you introduce ridiculous situations: i.e. a dogfight between a WW2 cargo & fighter plane or perhaps getting knocked out by a dingy. Bond doesn't use any gadgets, except for a phone and at one point he even takes a ride in a smart car. The only cool car Bond drives is a wreck from the opening scene. Bond's nemesis, Greene, is a petty middle-man for the secret organization (yet to be named), who's primary role in this movie is as that organization's herald. There is nothing remotely interesting or uncanny about him. He is not even clever/smart, but is just sleazy (an atypical role for a Bond nemesis).

Without the "Bond" moniker this is nothing more than an average revenge-based action movie. The stink of the writer's strike is all over this movie as it feels rushed from the plot, to the action & even the CG effects (CG parachute jump is atrocious). I bet the writers thought their Goldfinger homage with the "black gold" covering the Bond girl instead of real gold was clever. It all seems borrowed and severely unoriginal. A true waste of 100 minutes for those that can sleep, but a miracle cure for the insomniacs of the world. If you need your fix of Daniel Greg, then go back to Casino Royale (Layer Cake is even better) or stay tuned for the next movie : "The Arc-Second of Truth".

-Celluloid Rehab
3/10
Absolutely awful action
BigManFran6392017 October 2021
Action is probably my favourite genre of film and I was looking forward to it because I liked Casino Royale. How the crap are you supposed to see the action if the camera is all like GRNRBGNRNTBRNG and SHUSHSUSHSUSHSUSHSUHSUS and a little bit of MDNDMSNSNNEKSNS. Oh I'm sorry are you confused? That was the camera shaking so much and giving me a headache. And also pretty boring and I've already forgotten a lot of it.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Overrated
aFrenchparadox22 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am sorry but I am going to be offensive and provocative towards a cornerstone of British culture. I only gave time to this opus because Mathieu Amalric was playing in it and because I convinced myself that as someone living in UK I should see it. But I didn't like Amalric in it, and it didn't change my idea that it's just some spectacular scenes wrapped in the same old story. Always the same structure, the only difference being that the bad guy is no longer a communist but some king of venture capitalist. It doesn't bring me anything more than 24, except that with 24, there is at least some thrill, enhanced by the series format. So I still think James Bond is overrated.
4/10
Insanely bad editing kills an otherwise at least passable 007 film
wdstarr-126 February 2021
Practically every other review has already said this but by god it needs repeating anyway: this movie has what might be the very worst-edited action scenes ever in a medium-to-high budget production. Actions scenes are usually the centerpieces of Bond films, but here the ultra-rapid cutting from one viewpoint to another, with close to no rhyme or reason, renders them literally incomprehensible -- it's like watching a *parody* of the genre with the quick-cut editing of action sequences turned up to eleven as a joke. I've watched the aerial sequence three times now and I still have no clue as to how Bond induced the enemy plane to crash. It's just mind-boggling that somebody made the movie this bad *on purpose*.

(And on another point, we now know that radiant heat does not exist in the 007verse. You can be in the middle of an inferno and as long as the flames aren't actually *touching* you, you're fine. I understand that Bond films, even in the current "closer to real-world" Daniel Craig era, require a fair amount of suspension of disbelief, but the sequences in the burning down/blowing up hotel required flat-out *disintegration* of disbelief. In the real world, Bond, Camille, and Greene all would have been quickly broiled alive in there.)

Okay, to be fair the *rest* of the movie was fairly good, with a decent plot and good acting from Craig, Judi Dench, Olga Kurylenko, and the completely unknown to me Mathieu Amalric as the villain. But taking the product as a whole, I can't go higher than four stars out of ten, and maybe it should just be three.
4/10
Bourne again Bond
badajoz-116 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the ridiculous opening sequence - a chase (was it cars up in the mountains?) that is jump cut every 50 milliseconds so that you cannot follow or appreciate anything to the dreadfully arch assassination sequence at the end('M' even appears inside Russia to co-ordinate matters!), this Bond movie trails along on the coat tails of the so-called new paradigm of spy/thrillers - the Bourne trilogy. Just as they were alright, so 'Quantum' is alright. But no more. Following boringly in the trail of 'The Dark Knight' the hero is dark and moody, on the edge, which means you get a dreadfully one paced, one sour look performance from Daniel Craig, only relieved by one good gag about Dame Judi! The film requires a memory of Casino Royale to fully follow, and a longing for Goldfinger when the golden girl scene is repeated, although presumably not by the actress playing Strawberry Fields, a gag I only got from the cast list! The film is one long chase/action video game, with subpar villains and a subplot with an Oedipus complex - just let 'M' be a boss, please. This is not James Bond for the noughties - it is a second rate derivative credit swap. Next time make it without the second unit crew!!!
6/10
The most disappointing Bond movie ever
arnab_das17 November 2008
I am absolutely stunned at how amateurishly a Bond movie can be made! Quantum Of Solace doesn't have any quantum of theatrical solace in it. A perfectly disappointing movie apt enough to ruin all the rave reviews received by the Bond franchise after Casino Royale.

Daniel Craig does his best to save a sinking ship (the movie, I mean), and the other actors chip in but all their good work is hardly enough to make this a movie you'd appreciate.

Italy has never looked so disappointing and I'm appalled at the director's inability to depict the scenic beauties of the wonderful country, something that made Casino Royale a super hit of a movie. Sloppy direction and absolutely awfully shot sequences that almost made me fall asleep in the theatre, makes Quantum Of Solace my pick for the most disappointing Bond movie ever.
5/10
Not Very Good
uroshnor5412 September 2014
Quantum of Solace was a pretty average movie. I didn't hate it but I didn't really like it either. I honestly didn't like Casino Royale either. Skyfall is the best Daniel Craig Bond film (yeah, the plot doesn't make sense but it has some terrific action). It's not that I hate Daniel Craig. But he's not the closest to the 007 of Ian Fleming's books like everyone says he is. It's not because he has blonde hair or anything like that. It's that he tries too hard to be a cold and uncaring secret agent who's absolutely indifferent to killing.

But we're talking about Quantum of Solace here. The plot was okay but not very compelling. I did like Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes more than Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, though I'll admit I didn't like Eva Green at all and she's one of my least favorite Bond girls. The action just felt a bit, um, not very well-executed. And why'd they try to imitate one of the most famous scenes in the series (the death of Tilly Masterson)?

So yeah, Quantum of Solace was not terrible but not very good or very fun either. Skyfall is definitely the best Daniel Craig Bond movie so far.
1/10
Have a New Coke with the New Bond / Bring Fields back
filmalinda17 November 2008
I am a HUGE Bond fan, books and movies. Loved Casino -- music, credits, gags, plot. Just watched it again. I will shell out bucks to see Daniel Craig's CHEST and his million watt smile, both MIA in this movie except for a nanosecond. They shot in Italy, for crying out loud -- couldn't they scare up a Lamborghini or a Testa Rossa for Bond to play with? No great cars; no sex, just talking about self-hate; no gadgets; Dench was wasted. Feeble plot, like bad 70's TV. Did anybody else notice that the girl's backstory was lifted from Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls?

TO THE PRODUCERS:

1. Bring back Gemma Aterton as the Bond Girl in the next one. Say that they made a mistake in IDing her in Quantum. She's got it all -- the Bond Style, wit, looks. And smarts enough that she isn't demeaning to women.

2. Give Bond a CAR and some GADGETS to play with.

3. Give us the theme back. If you have to have a new Bond theme, why not use You Know My Name from Casino?

4. Opening credits have to be DYNAMITE -- pic and sound. We go to the movie so that we can stamp our feet and clap and cheer when the theme and the gun barrel slam onto the screen.

5. SEX, please. Wouldn't it have been nice in Quantum if Bond had tried to drown his sorrows by going AWOL, getting drunk, and having a whole lot of meaningless sexual encounters? But he really seemed to be over it at the end of Casino when he said, "The bitch is dead." Let's not have a Bond who lingers and gets involved. Fields is just the right amount of casual.

6. Let us LAUGH. The world is a disaster, so give us some escapism.

The wait isn't over. It's just beginning.
8/10
Shortest Bond film ever is still good, solid action.
Anonymous_Maxine11 November 2008
It is undeniable that Quantum of Solace literally feels a bit small after the powerhouse of Casino Royale, but even though a lot of people complain that it is not real Bond but just a regular run-of-the-mill action film, and director Marc Forster has been criticized for a lack of uniqueness in his directing, and for relying too much on extreme camera movements and lightning-fast editing techniques in putting together his action sequences.

In some ways these complaints are justified. It's true that the conclusion of the film is cut together at such a break-neck speed that the sheer number and speed of the cuts are a distraction from what's actually happening, but I have to disagree with the idea that the entire movie only reveals the name of the evil organization and introduces a few new characters and so is really unnecessary. It takes place immediately after Casino Royale ended and gives a feeling that it's tying up some loose ends, but if those ends were left untied and Casino Royale was not continued, we would certainly be missing a 007 film right now.

The movie starts out with a chase across rooftops that feels immediately uninspired, since we've seen it so many countless times before, but when we see one of the original action shots that was showcased in the trailer it turns into something much more. Like much of the rest of the movie, it has a sense of uncertainty, but ultimately proves itself.

Quantum of Solace continues the very sharp turn that Casino Royale took in the direction of the Bond saga. We are now very firmly in the real world. Gone are the days of the super- villains that want to steal satellites and destroy continents and sink Silicon Valley and start their own personal societies at the bottom of the sea. Gone are the constant efforts to start World War III, the efforts to achieve some form of global destruction, the slow deaths at the hands of primitive laser beams and the villainous side-kicks with bizarre weapons like buzz- saw yo-yos and flying, razor-blade lined bowler hats.

Now, it's all about economics and power, and to say that these are not some of the most important issues in the world society at this very moment would be quite a statement.

Casino Royale ended with Bond standing over an injured Mr. White, the man behind Vesper's betrayal, and introducing himself. He is then the subject of the rooftop chase at the beginning of Quantum of Solace, and soon we learn the real meaning of Quantum itself. It seems that Craig's claim that the title is meaningless might have been a strange marketing ploy, since it clearly is not.

Quantum is an extremely powerful organization that, as our team learns early in the film, "Has people everywhere." M is amazed to discover that, while people use phrases like that all the time, this guy actually meant it. Her sense of security is shattered when she learns that her personal bodyguard of eight years was an undercover Quantum agent, and she realized the power of the enemy that MI6 is facing.

Quantum's main goal is to help an exiled Bolivian governor retain control of his country, in exchange for turning over to them a seemingly meaningless piece of land. The exiled governor is unaware that this tract of land would give him power of a tremendous quantity of all of South America's water supply and, get this, provide him with exclusive utilities provider rights! How's that for a Bond villain? He isn't interested in starting global warfare, he wants to become South America's PG&E!

A lot of people were unimpressed with Casino Royale and Daniel Craig in general. Personally I thought both were outstanding, but what I can tell you about Quantum of Solace is that, if you hated Casino Royale you're probably not going to love Quantum Solace either. But if you loved or even at least enjoyed it, then you are almost certainly going to have a similar good time in this one.

I have heard rumors that Royale and Solace are the first two parts of a sort of trilogy within the 007 saga, and it makes sense because the two are very unique among the rest of the films and, most importantly, this one closes without many loose ends but with a definite feeling that there is another movie after it somewhere.

We may do well to keep in mind that Casino Royale was a prequel, so those of you wondering if and when the franchise will ever come to a conclusive end might look for ways in which the newer movies start to lead into the beginning of Dr. No, the oldest one.

Personally it looks to me like there is no end in sight, but I love the new direction that the films have taken, so I am happy to see them continue. They take themselves much more seriously now (whether or not you like Craig's two films so far, you can't deny that they are more serious than their predecessors), and they have certainly generated more interest in where the films will go in the future.

Daniel Craig is under contract to do four films as 007, and I predict that he will do two more prequels and that the next actor to portray Bond will take over where Die Another Day left off. Until then, Quantum is not the biggest and not the best Bond film, but it is a solid entry in the revitalized series.
7/10
Great entertainment!
stuka2430 November 2008
I think the IMDb comment on "Hitman" is perfect for this KIND, genre of movie (007's stylized violence): "You want to go to the movies and have a discussion afterwards? Go watch "Lions for Lambs." You want to go have a fun time at the movies with your friends? Check out "Hitman.".

Let's start by one of the main attractions of all Bond movies... Bond women :). Olga Kurylenko rocks! I'm glad she grew up in poverty and became an actress an successful model. Now a "Cindirella" story that's true to life! The soviet touches (extended family on a flat, raised by a single mother, bent on art) are certainly "humbling", I just hope she doesn't forget. She's got a certain fragility that just makes all the difference. Nice "bodies", specially now, in this age of aesthetic surgeries, are almost trite on the media. But a nice smile is hard to manufacture yet. So thanks to IMDb we know she learnt French easily, plays the piano and took early ballet lessons. Well, I'm glad it shows! She walks very well. I've just learned she also acts at "Hitman". And now at "Max Payne"! Well, sometimes reality gives us a small break :). For instance, the babe there, "Mila Kunis", is nice, but lacks that touch.

As for the film :)... I this it's as good as "Casino Royal". By the way if you'd watched it before, you'd understand a couple of scenes better. Seriously :). The dialogues are wooden, you get to see the same old characters doing basically the same (it's a popular film!) but I think this production succeeds at giving the 007 franchise a "turn". Nothing compares to Sean Connery's 007. I liked Mathieu Amalric as the villain, he looks a bit estranged all the time, but at least that has more character than ice cold "Le chiffre" (Casino R's). M is finally present at this movie, all the best for us fans. She's got some character development, doubts and choices to boot! Gemma Arterton, who's her :)? I liked her posh Brit accent, would have liked her to be more than 2' on the film so we could get to know why she was there :(. As a surprise good Bond film, my favourite is "Die another day". The baddie, action, settings and even some dialogues, like "Western hypocrisy" are still on my mind. The fencing scene, race on ice palace, there's simply no "lasting in memory" scene here but for, maybe the exploding hotel in the desert. The pre-credit sequence is no big deal, I agree with other reviewers.

On a personal note, I thought the portrait of "Bolivia" was true to fact, and I live in a similar country! The policemen with sunglasses at night were so familiar somebody at the cinema shouted "It's the bonaerense!" (our suburban police, notorious for everything). Giancarlo Gianinni shines through and enlightens every move he sets foot on. I liked the "double agents", and the best phrase was probably Mr. White's: The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere.

The film being short is important, had it been 10 minutes longer it'd lost the "punch". Overall, a great film to spend time on!
Where's Mr Bond?
ukb0079 March 2009
Right. This one does not start with the typical but oh-so-lovely white ball rolling and the gun-barrel shot. The Bond theme isn't there either. Bond himself is too violent, too crass, too...americanized in his physical action sequences? Where's the suave intelligent British spy? Where's the impeccable Mr Bond that Sean Connery and even Pierce Brosnan made so famous? If you're interested in an action flick without any nostalgic nonsense about James Bond 007, then of course you'd be hard pressed to find anything better. This one's the perfect matinée popcorn action flick for action buffs, no question about it.

This erosion of the aura associated with an icon is becoming more commonplace than we really care for. Think about 'Superman Returns' which evoked gay sentiments by making a Superman with a narrower waist and a thinner underwear than we either were accustomed to or greatly cared for.

Watch Quantum of Solace whose showcase attribute is plentiful action, but which is not a Bond movie in the sense that it shows a man with a British accent named James Bond and working for the MI6, but who evokes no familiarity with the James Bond that we came to love over the decades.
4/10
More Like Quantum of Misery *1/2
edwagreen28 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very disappointing film. Do you know why? As these films go on, the plot becomes extremely thin and all we get is high action. I know that the producers want to please the teens out there, but this is becoming ridiculous.

Dominick Green is supposed to be interested in global warming and oil. In reality, he wants to create a drought. What does he want to do, control Poland Spring? This is never fully explained. Instead we get exciting chase scenes on roof tops, boat chases and airplane sequences. Enough is enough already.

Imagine, James Bond becomes suspect here and at one point Judy Dench, as M, has him suspended. It's long overdue for Ms.Dench to withdraw from this role. Even Lois Maxwell knew when to get out. As for Daniel Craig, the man has a built in anger. He totally lacks the sex appeal of a Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Craig would do in army training films as a commander.
10/10
GREAT Sequel!! --- But it should be seen as a sequel
Fugitive_at_imdb15 November 2008
Quantum of Solace (QoS) by itself would work nicely if you put a lot of thought into what's going on. But most people would rather not- they want everything spelled out for them. Well, this film won't do that. There's enough in there to help viewers fill in the blanks if they try hard, but just barely. You'd have to really study closely everything that's said.

Now, if you watch Casino Royale (CR) right before QoS, then many, MANY things will be clear. But you'd still have to think a bit. If that's something you'd rather not get into, then skip it. But if you like that sort of thing, then this is a fantastic "part two" for you.

Basically the creators of QoS want you to purchase CR and watch these films together. If you do it, they'll reward you with a cool, intricate storyline. And when QoS goes to home theatre format, they want you to buy it and show them together to your friends.

Of course, EVERY production company wants to buy all their films, but CR and QoS truly work well together. CR admittedly stands better alone than QoS, but there you are. Not every day is a Sunday.
1/10
This entire movie should have been left on the editing room floor
randymgoins2 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just returned from the theater and have to admit this is the worst Bond movie in the series.

I have seen every first run James Bond movie on the Big Screen (my aunt and uncle took me to a drive-in in the early 1960s to see "Dr. No"). So, I did not want to break my silver screen viewing streak.

That said, I was really disappointed in this outing. To be honest, I do not think Daniel Craig is all that great as James Bond. His portrayal of 007 comes across as an unlikable character: cold, with no sense of humor. Bond movies of old mixed wit with drama which made them enjoyable to watch (though the Roger Moore-era was a bit over the top). For me, Craig would seem better cast as the person James Bond is trying to defeat rather than the movie's hero.

Then, there are no gadgets in this effort. None. I thought I would never live to see a Bond flick without at least one gadget. Until now, that was one of the distinctive signatures of a James Bond movie.

Then there was QoS's plot. Back in the day Bond was all about thwarting villains and saving the entire world from destruction. Here, all he did was to make sure some South American Third World village did not have to buy Crystal Geyser bottled water.

I gave this outing a 1 out of 10 because the movie was short. God help us all of the Powers That Be had drug this movie out to a Casino Royal time frame.

Will I go to Bond 23? Yes. But not because I want to see what Craig's 007 will do next. Rather, I do not want to end my personal consecutive streak.
8/10
Bond is back and takes a beating.
michaelRokeefe15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Word of mouth is not much in favor of this being one of the best Bond pictures. I rather enjoyed the lesser spotlight on gadgets and parade of vixens. Of course I thought the first minute of the movie might be a car ad. The obligatory car chase opens this 007 assignment and it is interesting enough. James Bond(Daniel Graig)is asked to put his emotions on hold; but still manages to pursue the identity of the man responsible for his loved one's betrayal and death as well as foil a sinister business man's control of a nation's major asset...not oil, but water resource.

The story more than a bit messy, but enough action to keep most everyone happy. Agent 007 gets knocked around, cut and bruised...but as usual his endurance training serves him well. M(Judi Dench)casts doubt on her prized agent that stays on mission in spite of declassification traipsing to Italy, Austria and South America.

Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton serve as Bond eye candy and Mathieu Amalric is the cocky and ruthless villain that you want a piece of if Bond leaves any. Also in the cast: Jeffrey Wright, Jesper Christensen, Joaquin Cosio and Giancarlo Giannini. Fans wait long enough to get their next Bond fix and have a right to be let down...if that's the case, life goes on. However the theme song for QUANTUM OF SOLACE has to rank among the worst ever.
1/10
Quantum of Cobblers
kevin-47731 October 2008
This isn't a film. It's a product. And a pretty tacky one at that.

Here's a plot summary, without spoilers (in fact, it's difficult to provide spoilers for this film, since it is so clichéd and predictable): 'Action - thin thread of plot - action - another thin thread of plot - action - action - action - further thin thread of plot - action - end'.

Someone compared it to a Bourne movie. Excuse me, but those movies had some intelligence at work behind them: good characters, strong scripts, plots. There was no real plot here - just a droopy, threadbare line on which to peg out a bag-load of action sequences we've all seen dozens of times before. I've seen better scripts in films produced by art college film studies undergrads. And characters? There weren't any. Daniel Craig did his best with what was there, but it was a bit like watching a Cordon Bleu chef produce something worthwhile out of a loaf of stale bread and a tin of sardines.

Please... can't we just finish the franchise here and move on to something better.
5/10
Weak Bond entry.
Boba_Fett11387 November 2008
While "Casino Royale" was also far from a perfect Bond movie, I liked the movie for the direction it was heading in. It basically re-imagined and set up the Bond franchise all over again, with a change of characters, style of action and story lines and overall approaches of it all. Instead of further redeveloping and re-imaging, "Quantum of Solace" feels like a movie that is standing still in its evolution and offers nothing new to the revived modern Bond franchise. It's as if this movie is just an in-between movie for things yet the come. But if they continue to redevelop and set up things again for the James Bond franchise in this pace and style, it means that we'll probably see the full new redeveloped style in and characters in 3 Bond movies from now. Bond still doesn't feel like the James Bond character we all grew up with and he is obviously a character still in development, no 'shaken, not stirred' lines, no gadgets, no Q, no Moneypenny, no 'Bond, James Bond' introduction line and heck Bond doesn't even sleep with the Bond girl! It makes you wonder what it is that makes this movie more special and makes it distinct itself from other action genre movie made this present day ant time. The answer is sadly; nothing. With this movie the Bond franchise really doesn't earn its right to exist anymore among other genre pieces in this modern era.

Why spend something like a $200,000,000 budget on a movie that is just like any other modern action movie made these days? When I go and see a James Bond movie I expect to see something special. Something different from any other genre movie. Something more fun and entertaining. This movie is like the world upside down! Normally James Bond always used to be a trend-setter for action movies, now it has become a franchise that itself lends from- and imitates different action movies and styles. This movie is already often being compared to the 'Bourne'-movies for a good reason. Its action style with shaky cam, fast editing and all is similar, however also not as good as in any of the 'Bourne'-movies (and I'm not even a too great fan of the shaky cam in the Bourne movies), with has everything to do with the fact that Marc Forster is simply not an action movie director.

It already in advance seemed like an odd move to install Marc Forster as the new director of a Bond movie. When you like on his résumé you'll only see drama's and art-house movies. Not anything with remotely some action in it. Normally these directors often surprise when they are given the opportunity to directed a movie like this one, which isn't the case for Marc Forster however unfortunately.

For also when you like upon this movie as a stand-alone movie, a movie that has nothing to do with the Bond franchise and simply purely as an action-thriller, this movie is severely lacking. This is due to the very messy story, with shaky motives for all characters and a main plot-line that just never becomes fully clear. Because of the this also the villain doesn't work out. Mathieu Amalric seems like a good and interesting actor but a Bond villain needs to be evil personified. The villain is simply not villainous enough in this movie and has no good interaction with the Bond character. This was the guy Le Chiffre was taking orders from? Hard to imaging!

Also its severely lacking with its action and I don't just mean because of its style. For a $200.000.000 budget movie it is surely lacking in some big spectacular and renewing action sequences. It's really a movie like dozens of others, with action you've already seen before in movies that got made 20 years ago, only better looking. But not that you'll notice this though, its shaky cam and fast editing style ensures this.

The movie is filled with references to tons of other classic Bond movies, some more obvious than others. Sounds like a fun and good idea on paper, however in the movie itself it often works out more annoying and distracting at times.

Another problem with this movie is that it is a direct sequel to "Casino Royale". Maybe it would had been a good idea to announce a direct sequel if you already have the proper script for it. It seems to me that they had a hard time coming up with a good script that connects well to the events of "Casino Royale". Yes, Mathis is in it again but why? Felix Leiter is in it again but why? Mr. White is in it again but why? It all feels so obligatory and doesn't seem to have a significant enough purpose. It's also because of this that the movie feels like its standing style and doesn't develop the new Bond and Bond style further. The movie would had definitely better as a new stand-alone movie, that had nothing to do with the events which occurred in "Casino Royale".

Yes, Daniel Craig is in good form again and he is definitely a good choice for a more grittier and humane Bond, driven by his emotion but he simply is given nothing good or interesting to do, which is just a waste of talent. Same goes for basically every other actor within this movie as well. Olga Kurylenko is a waste of a potentially fine Bond-girl, Mathieu Amalric is a waste of a potentially fine Bond-villain and Judi Dench is also in it somewhere.

So stop making direct sequels and start finally with completing to set up the Bond character and the new Bond movie style. Oh and also just pick a better script and more suitable director next time please.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
1/10
Quantum is a big letdown. Marc Foster, definitely a wrong director
junjun200714 November 2008
I saw Quantum of Solace twice. First time for curiosity and expectation and second time for confirmation. I am a big bond fan like many of you. I can watch any bond film without a problem. I know that there are some of you out there that have some issues with some of the Bond actors. Connery, Roger, Pierce, and Craig, I personally love them all as 007 and I've enjoyed pretty much every single bond movie. There is just something about bond films that I get excited and mesmerized by. Anyway speaking of Quantum of Solace, I am really confused by what in the world they did to this film and why in the world they hired Marc Foster to direct this. Plus, is this really the highest budgeted bond film? are you kidding me? All the money must've been spent on pointless and unoriginal action sequences and explosions. sigh... Anyway, Quantum of Solace is a huge disappointment. At one point, I couldn't believe this was a Bond movie. There are just so many problems such as plot flow, direction, character development, very uninteresting villains, and most importantly, all the Bond story and character elements have been stripped away. I think they made a huge mistake by hiring some incompetent crew that are into sappy Avant-Garde movies. Foster and his crew destroyed pretty much everything that Casino Royale had accomplished to revive the franchise. Anyway, in my opinion, Quantum of Solace was just awful and probably one of the worst bond movies I've ever seen. Craig's talent and Bond franchise are definitely put in jeopardy. However, this movie will make lots of profit and do well in the box office due to success of its predecessor "Casino Royale." Unfortunately, the main motivation of the viewer will be pure curiosity and expectation driven by all the media hypes. I am sorry to say this but this movie is a failure. As a bond fan, I am really angry about this. If Marc Foster directs another Bond movie, I will never watch another Bond film again.
7/10
Don't compare this with Casino Royale
helmutty8 November 2008
If you want to enjoy this movie, it is best for you to see this as a stand-alone movie. I know that Quantum of solace is a direct sequel of Casino Royale. I won't compare this with Casino Royale, each of them has its own points. Casino Royale is the introduction of characters and James Bond. Quantum of solace directly continues where Casino Royale left off. It is action-packed, more action-packed than Casino Royale. James Bond is back and nobody can stop him seeking revenge for his dead Vesper. The stunts are admittedly good. Action scenes are intense. Location sets are beautiful. Bond movies can't possibly go wrong with Bond himself.

Story: As this is the direct sequel to Casino Royale, it starts off where it left off. It starts with a car chase scene and soon the dangerous foot chase which is amazing. Yes, there is action non-stop. The action scenes are thrilling and intense, they are not like those repeated action scenes where I get bored watching them. Bravo for the stunts. They are all realistic. The story do not really develop, Bond on a mission to stop an environmentalist, Dominic Greene, from taking control of a country's water supply and Bond is also on his mission on revenging for his dead girlfriend. Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is then introduced, she also wants to stop Greene as she has some personal reasons for doing that.

Overall: It is a good direct sequel to Casino Royale that only picks on the stunning stunts and action. Bond fans will definitely watch this. Action fans will like this too. Those looking for any developments like characters' developments in movies, this will not be the right one. Leave your brains at home and just let the action unfold.
6/10
That's more like it Mr. Bond
freemantle_uk2 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2008 has been a very good year for films, starting off strongly with films like No Country for Old Men, Sweeney Todd and There Will Be Blood, then to early action films like Cloverfield and I Am Legend and big summer blockbusters such as the Dark Knight, the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. Quantum of Solace is another fine addition to the films of 2008 and the Bond franchise.

Quantum of Solace is the first Bond film to be a direct sequel to the previous film. It takes one hour after the events of Casino Royale and the actions starts straight away with an car chase in rural Italy before taking Mr. White who was shot in the leg at the end of Casino Royale to a secret underground location in Siena, Tuscancy. There Bond and M question Mr. White, and mocking them and tells MI6 that 'we have people everywhere', before escaping. With the little information MI6 has Bond goes to Haiti to find a possible contact with Mr. White's organisation. It is there where Bond meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a Bolivian agent and a woman who is seeking revenge against General Medrano (Joaquin Cosío), the former director of Bolivia, and seeks to reclaim his former title. In Haiti, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a member of the Quantum organisation promises to aid Medrano in his coup, in exchange for a piece of worthless land in the middle of the country. Greene is able to get the support of the CIA, promising the American cheap oil for their non-involvement. However, Quantum has a wider ambition, and have their fingers in a lot of pies, and the organisation has a lot of important members of government, intelligence and business. Greene claims to be a environmentalist, buying up large parts of land in South America for reforestation projects, but he is really trying to control the world's most valuable resource, water.

As well as Bond's mission to stop Greene's evil scheme, Bond is also on a personal mission of revenge for Vesper who killed herself at the end of Casino Royale. She had ended up working with Quantum to save her Algerian boyfriend, but ended up trying to protect our hero. He blames them for Vesper's betrayal and her death. He is willing to do anything to get revenge, including seduction an innocent young woman, and going rouge from MI6.

After Casino Royale, the obvious choice for director would have been Martin Campbell, but he was unavailable and the producers of Bond like to change directors to give each film a fresh feel. Marc Forster was picked to direct, an excellent Swiss director who had a good reputation for character films and a Bond fan, but Quantum of Solace was his first action film. Dan Bradley was hired as second unit director, famous for his work with the Bourne Trilogy and help with the action scenes. Forster did not copy Campbell's director and made his own film in his own style, which worked a very well. His style was fresh and different to Bond franchise. Paul Haggis was kept as a writer, another man credited for the reboot of the Bond franchise. Mark Kermode, the film critic on Radio Five Live claimed that the plot made no sense, however I beg to differ because I thought that it was a tight thriller, trying to take the most realistic view possible about how an organisation could try and dominate the world and as the film said water is the world's most valuable resource. Many experts claim that in 21th century that it is very likely that they will be wars over water, including in Central Asia and the Middle East. Forster also decides to add to the realism by making the villain more human, having no scars or having a God complex or anything, just making him a ruthless business man.

The acting is of a high standard, Daniel Craig and Judi Dench offer strong performances as usual, and they were good performance from many of the other actors like Amalric, Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton.

They are some more traditional Bond elements in this film, such as the scenes in the horse-race and the opera and Forster pays homage to previous films like Goldfinger, the Living Daylights and even Moonraker. The film has a very sixties feels to it, but there are no gadgets and the film is also very comtempoary. The CIA is not shown in the best light, willing to support a director in their own backyard, but at least Felix Leiter does at least over a more moral voice. There are also elements of the Bourne films in this film. As well Quantum of Solace is more action packed then Casino Royale, but you need to see Casino Royale first to get the background to it.

They are three faults with the film. First I thought the film was a little too short and could have been about 10 minutes longer. Second the editing is also needing a bit of work, loosing track of some of fighting, but it was still very intense. Finally the theme-song was really awful!

Quantum of Solace isn't as good as Casino Royale, but its a very strong film and a good second place to Casino Royale and an excellent follow-up. A very strong 9 out of 10.

Finally to all haters of the Daniel Craig Bond, or seeing Bond as a gritty realist character, I'll put it to you this way: Quantum of Solace is a masterpiece next to Die Another Day.
1/10
Shite Masquerading As A Bond Movie.
PathetiCinema14 February 2009
Come back Roger Moore. PLEASE!!!!!! Here, we have some serious blond guy pouting and looking like a builder who's stolen a suit. This film could be any old thriller. Absolute desecration of the Bond franchise. This 'Bond in a new direction' bollox really annoys me. There isn't even a gun barrel at the start. Why have they removed the things we love? Lunatics. They have removed any ounce of humour and we are left with DULL. Who is this character? Sidney Bond? Dennis Bond? It's certainly not James Bond. And don't give me that 'it's more like the Bond in the books' crap. Those are books. These are films. Escapism. Daniel should have been tackling idiotic giants like 'Jaws' or swinging on vines imitating Tarzan. These are the things that Bond is all about. Silly, good time fun.

This is as much fun as having your testicles pickled.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rushed
ED122304_TGG7 July 2020
Sure there is a few cool action scenes, but the plot to me feels as if it has no pacing. The scenes go by so fast you have no idea what's going on and what the movie is about. It just lacks overall depth to me.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
end of bond as we know it
pepekwa30 April 2009
Iike many other bods on here I was extremely disappointed in this latest edition of the bond genre. I grew up on these movies and loved the gadgetry, the cool stunts, the suaveness of the bonds, the one-liners, the maniacal bad guys, etc. There was none of this in this movie, the producers said when Daniel craig came on board, they wanted to make Bond hard-edged, more gritty, more of a regular bloke I guess who you could identify with more. But whats the point of that, movies are about escapism, part of the appeal of the bond genre is the whole mystique, the very fact that this guy is so debonair and stylish and is jetting all over the wold and he can can have any woman he wants. Bond getting drunk on the plane and not drinking a vodka martini, shaken not stirred had the child in me screaming for the return of moore or connery who would never have done this. Anyway, rant over, this movie is just a regular action movie like say "the transporter" but not as good as the bourne identity. Action movies are ten-a-penny these days and bond movies always had a leg-up on the competition for the reasons in the first paragraph. I'm a fan of daniel craig as he is extremely fit and athletic and does the role he is given well but unless there's a big improvement, i wont be seeing the next installment. This movie has little to recommend it even as an action movie, the plot is complex and bewildering and while the stunts are good, they don't blow you away and you couldn't care less about the characters, without sounding too clichéd, ian fleming would be turning in his grave
4/10
Major letdown after "Casino Royale"
Buddy-5122 November 2008
Those anticipating a smart, savvy follow-up to the superb, revivifying "Casino Royale" from 2006 will be sorely disappointed by "Quantum of Solace," an instantly forgettable entry in the ever-popular James Bond series.

A muddled, barely coherent storyline - featuring a hitherto unknown group's badly explained plot involving eco-terrorism - is no match for the overwrought and overproduced nature of the film, in which Daniel Craig's 007 goes from being a complex, conflicted character in "Royale" to a soulless killing machine here.

The action sequences are hectic as all-get-out, but with no one at the center of them for us to really care about or root for, they quickly loss their luster and impact.

Here's hoping for better things from the franchise next time out.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Since when did 007 become Superman?
ArthurMausser8 December 2008
When I sat down in the movie theater, I was anticipating another thrilling Casino Royale experience, where action scenes were stretched but still believable and easily viewable.

What I witnessed was a mess of action shots that were borderline subliminal because I really didn't even have a chance comprehend what was shown by the time 10 more were thrown at me.

I was upset in the spiderman series when they made spiderman as indestructible as superman. In this movie they have given 007 "Spidey Sense" the ability of Superman to be fire proof, and the iron ankles of Ironman. Completely ridiculous. Roger Moore & Sean Connery would walk out of the theater before the opening credits after seeing the first ridiculous scene.

Perhaps they want you to come away from this movie saying "I have to see this movie again so I can comprehend half of the 1 second action shots and the murky plot." Sorry, not gonna happen!

This movie is worth a view on HBO if HBO decides to waste their money on it. I hope the next movie is done by a different director who takes the time to focus on easily flowing scenes, dialogue, action shots. Someone like Roger Donaldson (The Bank Job) would be much more relaxed and not on crack like Marc Forster.

Side note: Gemma Arterton should have been the main bond girl.
Watchable Bond film, but with major flaws
long-ford31 January 2009
This film is quite a letdown after the stunning 'Casino Royale'. The plot is nonsensical (Bond trying to protect Bolivia's water supply!), humor is in very short supply, and the action scenes are hurt by an 'arty' approach whereby meaningless secondary scenes are juxtaposed between high-octane action sequences. Maybe this is what comes from an art-house directer making a Bond adventure. Daniel Craig tries his best but is badly hamstrung by a role that gives him virtually nothing to do. The climax (MINOR SPOILERS) is unsatisfying, specially the fate of the villain. Watchable on DVD.

Overall 6/10
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A very "meh" Bond film
leonardodaftson2 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the worst Bond film of the Daniel Craig era. Quantum of Solace itself isn't a "bad" movie, it's just a very "meh". The plot is too convoluted and the film needed to be a bit longer to help it breathe. The story is boring: if the bad guy wins, some people in Bolivia are going to have a higher water bill. Yeah, really, that's it. Total snooze fest. I read somewhere that this film was created during a Hollywood writer's strike, which explains the weak plot. The action scenes aren't anything spectacular, and the film used the quick cuts that were trendy at the time, but feel dated by today's standards. Overall it's just a very average experience as a whole, and definitely the weakest Daniel Craig era Bond film. Stick with Casino Royale or Skyfall instead.
1/10
James Bond in Name Only
grayjay17 December 2008
Do you remember the wonderful old James Bond movies? So fun to watch, there was always a great villain, Blofeld, Goldfinger, etc. And Q always outfitted James with great and clever gadgets. And the scenery and the Bond girls! Well, if you want a James Bond fix, go rent an old DVD. Quantum of Solace (and Casino Royale) bear no resemblance to those classic Bond movies. While I like Daniel Craig, he is so very tough and brutal, and is always so beat up. The Bond girls are also too rough and tough, with minimal chemistry with Bond. The story is totally undecipherable, with multitudes of bad guys, even though you don't know who, why, or where from, nor do you care. Non-stop car chases and gunfights, but there is no emotional involvement with any of it. Even M, the wonderful Judi Dench, seemed to just read her lines. If this was just a stand-alone action movie, it would be o.k., but to call it "James Bond" makes the movie a disappointment.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What an utter disappointment
jaybob25 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I normally have liked the Jams Bond film,They were a fun view. This overloaded special effect film was nothing more than car chases & explosions,fights,torture and other forms of mayhem with less than 30 minutes of story.

Special effects are usually very thrilling and exciting,BUT when they are over done, You cannot remember any of them. Previous films in this franchise had a Great beginning & ending,the rest of film had an exciting interesting story line.

Here we begin with a song, Perhaps the worst example of a song imaginable. Bad voices, disgusting lyrics.

Then we have a meaningless car chase over a mountain. This sense has been used is far too many films & now is boring.

Daniel Craig is Bond,He is too good an actor for this junk.

The villain reminded me of Roman Polanski in Chinatown. The man was not as mean or nasty as Roman was. There are the usual sexy required females, this time played by persons I know not of.

I will not even mention their names or the directors name.The only decent performance was by Jeffrey Wright & he was only in one scene for less than 2 minutes. There was no other recognizable name except for Judi Dench as M another waste of a fine actress.

The only reason this has a rating of 3 is that the cinematography & settings are good,. BUT why go to all these locations & then use CGI effects.

This film is a pure waste of money & the audiences time.

Ratings: *1/2* (out of 4) 42 points(out of 100) IMDb 3 (out of 10_
4/10
Set on Self-Destruct
Hertsmere8 November 2008
How on earth does this film have an IMDb rating of 7.1 ?????

I'm beginning to wonder if the current directors and producers at EON Productions have been infiltrated and subverted by SPECTRE, on orders from Blofeld, with the aim of destroying James Bond from within.

This just does not look or feel like a Bond film. Where's Q ? Where's the gadgets ? Where's the car with the cool armour and trick gadgets ? Where's Moneypenny ? Where's Bond catchphrase ? "The name's Bond. James Bond" Where's Bond's martini ? "Shaken not stirred" Where are the girls ? - the simply gorgeous girls that make a Bond film. What has happened to the stirring music ? What has happened to the dramatic opening title song that needs to be sung by a booming diva so as to let the audience know that we are in the presence of an epic Bond ? What has happened to the thrilling, dramatic and breathtaking opening sequences that made a James Bond film so fantastic ? What has happened to Bond making love to the Bond girl ?

They have abandoned everything that made James Bond so unique and so loved.

But even worse is what they have done to the character of James Bond himself. Bond, as played by Sean Connery was oozing with sexuality and sophistication, Bond, as played by Roger Moore, was a gentleman who could dispatch villains with a wry joke. But Bond, as played by Daniel Craig, is just a cold hearted, unfeeling thug.

What both Sean Connery and Roger Moore realised was that Bond's job is to be Her Majesty's killer and that, therefore, he needs humour, sensitivity, class and sophistication in order to make him human and likable. Killing people dulls and deadens the soul, so Bond needs to have redeemable qualities in order to retain and save his own soul. Daniel Craig's Bond has none of those attributes. He is a killer, brute and thug. It's as if he kills by numbers. The viewer is not drawn to Daniel Craig's Bond in the same way as he was to Sean Connery's Bond or Roger Moore's Bond.

As for the action sequences, they were far too fast and furious. They simply didn't register on the eye or the brain. There were far too many close ups and a complete loss of perspective. The viewer sees Bond in one fight scene and then, just a little later, sees him in another fight scene without any rhyme or reason or story development.

Violence for the sake of Violence does not a James Bond film make.

EON Productions have devalued and debased James Bond. They have discarded everything that made Bond great. This Bond runs the risk of being labelled and viewed as being nothing more than a Jason Bourne rip off.

Why did they do it ? Why ?

Even the directors and producers of this film seem to acknowledge that they have lost their way with this current Bond. How else can anyone explain the scene where a girl is found naked and dead, dipped black in oil, (a wry reference to Goldfinger, where a naked girl dies after being dipped in gold).

EON Productions needs to get back to a traditional Bond, if they carry on like this, all they will achieve is to alienate the Bond fan base. They are on a licence to self-destruction. They will ruin James Bond, they absolutely will.

The World needs a James Bond who is more than just a thug.
2/10
Nothing in this movie makes any sense
mrnunley25 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
28 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Actually, I like Daniel Craig as Bond, and I think Olga Kurylenko is hot, and I'm perfectly happy to do without all the gadgets. However, if you're going to make a Bond movie to look as if it were a serious spy movie, it has to make at least a modicum of sense, and scene for scene, this was the most brainless Bond ever (and I'm including some very silly Roger Moore vehicles). Why is Bond going to such lengths to save a girl he just met in a car from a trap she just walked open-eyed into? How does he know it's a trap? And why does he care? Why, having figured out the method by which the leaders of an ultra secret organization communicate with one another, does he immediately tell them that he knows? Most un-spy like, if you ask me. Why is it so important the Giancarlo Gianini character return with Bond to Bolivia? What does he have to contribute? Plane fare? Why does M crack down on Bond, then thirty seconds later say she trusts him? What has changed in that half minute? Why does Bond choose to go after the villain when he does? Is it really necessary to make his move when the guy is in a heavily guarded facility? Couldn't he just wait until he comes out? The whole thing was just absurd. And when played straight as a shoot-em-up action film with no crazy comedy or gimmick-based stunts, the absurdity just becomes more visible.
4/10
He's not a Bond villain. He's just a very naughty boy!
YouSeenThat26 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Tomorrow Never Dies, I vowed to never watch another modern James Bond film again. Nothing against Brosnan, but after enduring the over-the-top rubbish that was being pumped out with our Irish friend at the helm, I gave up on 007 all together. Maybe it was the fact that I had grown out of the whole teenage fascination with the misogynistic martini-swilling agent, or maybe it was the fact that I was sick to death of watching Brosnan defeat an entire evil organization without even getting out of his gadgeted car - regardless of the motivating factor, the whole shebang just wasn't doing it for me anymore. Let's face it, Bond films just regurgitate the same tired formula over and over and over again. I craved to see a new, fresh take on Bond: I wanted dark and gritty action without the need to appease the popcorn-swilling morons via the use of enough explosives to level a third-world nation. It took almost a decade for Bond to finally change his ways, but Casino Royale rekindled my interest... well, at least enough interest to endure Quantum of Solace.

Now let's get this straight, personally I really don't care about the new versus old Bond debate, I have no issue with Daniel Craig as Bond, I don't care about a lack of gadgets... but just about everything else the critics have said about this film is more or less true. Your average film goer is probably going to be in one of the two following mindsets by the end of the first reel: either scratching their heads wondering what the hell is going on, or two, finding themselves so disinterested in the film that they are going to tune out for the next hour and a half. You can only take so many pointless car and boat chases before you switch off.

The story lacked anything resembling an intriguing hook, it was all over the shop, and the villain was, for the lack of a better term, absolutely pissweak. Aside from tying up some loose ends with Vesper, the film consisted of Bond flit-farting from one part of the world to the other on the trail of a mysterious group called Quantum. Usually the word 'mysterious' would conger up notions of intrigue and excitement - negative, this group seemed to be about as boring as the operas they choose to convene their secret meetings at. I'm sure we will find out more about this Quantum group in the next film, but if they are all as limp-wristed as our featured villain, Dominic Greene, it would be safe to presume that I won't give a rat's proverbial by then.

I can't even call this guy a villain and keep a straight face - Bond dropping a bar of soap in front of Richard Simmons would have warranted a higher threat level than this croissant-eating joker. He's an insult to actual villains everywhere... in fact, he's so pissweak that he even makes the average Cockney geezer from a Guy Ritchie film look like a criminal mastermind in comparison. Our Bond 'villain' is nothing more than a French environmentalist whose only real dastardly deed is to legitimately buy-up huge tracts of land in order to dam the water and sell it back to the inhabitants at exorbitant prices. Somebody call the Prime Minster, he's a Capitalist! No, this villain wasn't planning to destroy a country, let alone plotting for world domination... at least not in any traditional sense. Greene was just some scumbag businessman buying up land to make money - where the hell is the international threat in that? Where the hell is there any real threat worth the price of cinema admission? Sure, it's probably immoral, but since when did MI6 care about immoral? Quantum of Solace may have bloody well been better served as an episode of Scooby Doo - it sure as hell isn't worth James Bond's time! Plot and villain issues aside, Quantum of Solace did string together a few semi-decent action setpieces... well, that's assuming you could work out what the hell was happening. While I'm not going to blame the Bourne series for spawning the rapid-cut shaky cam hard-on in modern action films, rather merely bringing the technique back into vogue, let's just say that there were numerous times during fights and shootouts where the audience couldn't even determine who was getting shot, stabbed, punched or killed. It was so confusing at points I even heard a few people in the darkness of the cinema mutter phrases like 'was that Bond that just got shot?', or 'what the hell is going on?'. If you are claiming to be an action/thriller and your audience is struggling to follow those actions and thrills, you know you have a major problem on your hands.

Just before I wrap-up this scattershot review, I quickly want to mention a couple of small points about characters and characterization. Firstly, the Bond Girl (Olga Kurylenko) was very bloody ordinary, both in talent and looks. Secondly, what was all that rubbish that Craig was spouting in promos about Bond using the death of Vesper to soul search and become stronger: I think the quote was along the lines of 'he needed a quantum of solace to find himself'. If looking into the camera and pulling a Muhammad-I'm-Hard-Bruce-Lee pose is Bond's attempt at soul searching and finding himself, and the writer's attempt at characterization in order to make Bond a more fleshy character, man, don't even bother.

Normally I like to be pretty thorough with my reviews, but the critics before me have said just about all that needed to be said when it comes to Quantum of Solace. The plot is dull and can be difficult to follow, the villain is an absolute joke, and the action scenes were so hard to follow at times. After Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace was a major letdown.

Edited excerpt from: www.youseenthat.com
5/10
Quantum of Solace whets my appetite for 24: Redemption
alerter20 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Actors should stick to acting, until and unless they land the actual director's chair by choice and design. Even then, most actors, turned director, would rather not have to act, in order to focus on the directing.

Much has been written about Daniel Craig hand picking Marc Forster to direct Bond 22. Did Sean Connery similarly pick any of the directors of "his" Bond films? Quite the contrary, the directors of the original Bond films were well chosen by the founders of the franchise and those directors guided the rough hewn Connery into the role of 007 and on to bona fide stardom. One supposes that Craig needs his James Bond to be more James Bourne (or Jason Bond) in order to create a more comforting distance between himself and the unsurpassed Bond embodied by Connery. This is mistake number one in the making of Quantum of Solace and Craig should take no comfort in it. Does it also explain why Craig can't manage to utter the trademark, "Bond, James Bond," in QoS? Unless Craig co-produces or directs, he should leave the selection of director to others who understand Craig's own strengths and weaknesses in the role, better than he does himself. Even Forster's initial instincts about directing this film were correct; he has no "feel" for directing a "Bond" film. Hence, he failed, utterly, to deliver a Bond film.

Mistake two is resorting to over used script doctor (turd polisher) Paul Haggis to conjure up a more Bourne than Bond script. Haggis isn't Shakespeare. When Haggis lifts ideas from prior art, he rarely bothers to raise the bar these days. The opera setting confrontation is borrowed from Godfather III, where it was done with far more dramatic impact. The one Bond-ian embellishment in the QoS opera scene, which is of little consequence to the scene or plot, is the point-to-point audio conferencing gadget. Shades of Die Hard 1 & 2 in that, too. And speaking of copying while pretending not to copy, there's a gratuitous crib from Goldfinger elsewhere in QoS (with oil standing in for gold paint). What in blazes is M doing out in the field? M is supposed to be a Mandarin. Why bother over-building the "set" that is her office if she isn't even going to operate therein? The whole dialectic between M and Bond is supposed to be one of remote control/out-of-control.

Don't even think about sitting in the front half of the theater. We have the Bourne-ish "shaky cam" and staccato editing (chopping out way too many detail frames of more cinematically "realistic" action) that tend to discount all of the physical injuries Craig (and others) sustained on the way to bringing those action sequences to the screen. Roberto Schaefer seems clueless about how to capture realistic and coherent action. Perhaps that's part of how Craig got his injuries (while getting coverage shots). Or maybe it was the violence of all of the excessive editing. (Note to Matt Damon: Remind the Bourne stunt team that Bourne 4 is supposed to only be a movie.)

Mistake three is a total failure of dramatic/action pacing. Shortest running time Bond ever. Whoopee. This film is a sprint to the finish, which means more screenings per day for exhibitors, and no time for movie goers to absorb much of what (little) is going on. An healthy diet is supposed to include some "fat," otherwise a body will never absorb all of the necessary and vital nutrients. The same is true of story telling.

Allegedly 200,000 rounds of blank ammunition were discharged in the making of QoS. Is that supposed to impress anyone? When was the last time that a bullet killed (a non-double) Bond? What will EON promote next? Marksmanship scores of cast members? (Note to EON: blanks intentionally never hit the target.)

They also say that Craig hand picked the tailor for all of his Bond-wear in QoS. One has to wonder if he got to keep the wardrobe. Once again, though, Connery always looked 100% Bond, even when wearing off-the-rack suits in Never Say Never Again (which is a Bond film not counted by The Studio among The Official 22). At least one of Craig's highly tailored suit jackets looks a bit like a woman's waistcoat... or was that just a continuity error?

These mistakes happen when studios commit to making films on a forced timetable, before there is even a draft script in hand, let alone a worthy director well chosen. $225M dollars in the making and so little to show for it (unless that tab also includes all of the medical expenses, Craig's and two stuntmen.)

QoS is supposed to be a direct continuation sequel from Casino Royale. I have no problem with that concept. In fact, this really should be a double feature screening, with Casino Royale immediately preceding QoS (which I managed, courtesy of DVD). Then we might more readily follow what little (and heavily obfuscated) plot there is in QoS. But then we would also be reminded about how much better a Bond film Casino Royale is than QoS. QoS not only fails to surpass Casino Royale, it doesn't even come close to running a dead heat. QoS isn't a complete waste of time and money, but it has jarringly lost its way in the wake of Casino Royale.

I really liked Craig's Bond in Casino Royale and I think the franchise can succeed with him and respectfully re-invent and invigorate this now once again dusty franchise without "copying" prior Bonds.

But not by abandoning Bond for Bourne.

My bet is that 24: Redemption does a much better job with action, character and drama than QoS, when 24 should not even be a contender. That's how disappointing QoS is.
10/10
Quantum Of Solace : A small triumph
paul_oates29 October 2008
Saw QoS at the BFI screening this evening. It's intense and sometimes confusing but I came out feeling this is a film that will endure and ultimately prove satisfying.

I left wanting more at the end of QoS. I felt the film was missing something, and that it could have given me more. I have left other bond films after the initial screening feeling dissatisfied but with DAD and TWINE I knew they had nothing else to give. With QoS, I feel there is definitely a lot more there which will be revealed to me when I see the film in future and as I step back and think about it. QoS is a complex film with many layers which need to be peeled back.

The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper, and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. The plot does feel somewhat disjointed at times, particularly early on in the film, and it does make some big (and sometimes silly) jumps, but reaching the end of the film I felt the plot was un-important, it was merely a vehicle to provide a framework and a tapestry to enable Bond's emotional journey to played out and illustrated.

Dialogue is scant and is split between brief exposition and some slower deeper conversations, particularly between M and Bond, and Bond and Camille. I think a lot is communicated via other means, through images and sound, through juxtaposition and intelligent montage which will need a second viewing to reveal itself as the first viewing the assault on the senses is somewhat disorientating.

Action sequences are shot in a very similar way to Paul Greengrass's Bourne films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot.

Daniel Craig delivers a solid performance, although I have to say I was less wowed than in Casino Royale, but this is because I was not expecting such an intelligent portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale, while with QoS I was, so it was less of a surprise. Again, as in Casino Royale, this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric and Judi Dench are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff, however Giancarlo Giannini holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. Jeffrey Wright is great but underused. Elvis and Medrano are less consequential than I was expecting.

The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale well, and for you to engage. It could also prove dissatisfying to those viewers who are able to engage but want to see a familiar Bond-structure such as in OHMSS or FRWL, which is why I guess some true Bond fans have expressed concern. It's smart and rewarding but very very different.

I guess for the next film a more conventional structure will be required as we get back to Bond-basics, but ultimately I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal.

EDIT: Just seen it a second time. What doubts I had at the end of my first viewing are gone.

The action sequences are top notch. Either I was too close to the screen the first time or the fast paced editing disoriented me, but on a second viewing I followed them much more easily and marvelled at the brilliance of some of the cuts.

The plot makes perfect sense, there are wonderful little moments dotted around the film which I picked up on the second viewing that fill in a lot of the blanks, and also shed a new light on some of the plot turns. This film exists in a much more murky world with switching allegiances and hidden motives.

Minor characters, such as Elvis and to some extent Medrano remain sketches but their place in the story is clear and precise

Daniel Craig is Ian Fleming's James Bond unquestionably. This film is much better than Casino Royale or indeed any other Bond movie. In fact, it is a masterpiece. An intoxicating blend of action, suspense and drama.

It's a brave move of the producers to make a film like this, as the general public will go into the theatre with pre-conceived expectations of what a Bond film should do, which this film doesn't provide at first. But this really is top-notch stuff and it will earn its place in history
3/10
Running on Empty
gary-4441 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a huge fan of the genre, the series, and Daniel Craig,I approached this instalment hoping for the best - and was bitterly disappointed.Marc Forsters past directorial credentials did not identify him as an obvious Bond custodian,he does not rise to the challenge.

Nominally carrying on from "Casino Royale" the threadbare plot quickly runs out of steam. Its modest 106 minute running time still had me, and others, checking our wrist watches as the stripped down style failed to engage.The "threat" is a baddie who wants to monopolise water production in Bolivia, and then hike the prices! Have the script writers not heard of Severn Trent? The pre- credit car chase is pretty superfluous and fails to match even Liam Neeson in the "Taken" chase sequence at the Albanians camp.

The set pieces have a curious stand alone quality, the gritty sections lack continuity, conviction and purpose.As a consequence, viewers are left yearning for a bit of glamour, and gadgetry not as nostalgia, but to compensate.perversely the "Live And Let Die" style finale where the enemy HQ is blown up is totally unnecessary, and cold.

Craig is fine again as Bond,Olga Kurylenko is an adequate female lead.But there is no glamour and when M relieves him of his duties it smacks of a desperate attempt to try to spice up a flagging script. A misfire.
6/10
Overcomes various flaws to deliver solid entertainment
Leofwine_draca21 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond's back, in this latest instalment of the forty-year-plus franchise. QUANTUM OF SOLACE sees Daniel Craig returning to the role of Britain's grittiest spy after the success of CASINO ROYALE, and many fans will be asking whether this film can live up to the last one. Many feel that CASINO ROYALE breathed new life into a film series which had become stale and frankly boring. The answer is no: QUANTUM OF SOLACE is no match for its predecessor. But it's still a good movie.

The action kicks off seemingly minutes after the end of CASINO ROYALE. Bond has one of the bad guys locked in the boot of his car, and sub-machine gun wielding thugs are hot on his tail in a frenzied car chase, a pre-credits sequence and one of the year's best. From thereon in we're thrown into a plot involving a tycoon planning to steal an entire country's water resources. Action is the emphasis here; at times, the story feels lightweight, an excuse to hold together a string of increasingly frenetic chases and fights. The excitement is very much in the style of the Bourne franchise: frantically edited, reliant on stunt work over computer graphics, although some unwelcome CGI is present in a couple of scenes.

Craig slips back into the role with ease, as do returning actors Jeffrey Wright, Judi Dench, and Giancarlo Giannini. The newcomers do well too, with Mathieu Amalric making for a suitably slimy villain and Olga Kurylenko a sultry female fighter. Only Gemma Arterton as Agent Fields jars, a '60s-era Bond girl looking and feeling incongruous in the rebooted film series. As an action adventure, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is simple, fun fare: a slim, pared-down, white knuckle ride of a movie.
2/10
Absolutely atrocious
The worst Bond movie by far, and I've seen every one if them. It simply bounces from one preposterous action scene to the next with no plot or character development or even a pretense thereof.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Inferior, but not bad
Horst_In_Translation5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Quantum of Solace" is a James Bond movie from seven years ago. I am a great fan of the franchise and also of Daniel Craig's take on the role, so I was very excited when I watched this one shortly after it opened in theaters. I remember I was extremely disappointed. Now, over 5 years later, I gave it another watch and I must say I am not that disappointed really this time. It is a decent little movie, even if it is clearly inferior to "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall". I thought it was time to give this one another watch with "Spectre" about to come out. "Quantum of Solace" is a pretty short Bond movie as it stays clearly under the 110-minute mark. This is not a criticism though as these films usually manage to be more essential. What I really did not like about this one here, however, is the song by Jack Black and Alicia Keys. In my opinion, it is the worst Bond song in history and such a letdown after Chris Cornell's amazing contribution to the previous movie. I think the melody is not necessarily bad and it was alright during these moments when it is used in the movie, but the voices from these two do nothing for me at all, especially Keys as she is once again more screaming than singing.

The director here is German-born Marc Forster and he was probably picked because of his good jobs on "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", "Stranger than Fiction" and "The Kite Runner". However, his work on Bond is underwhelming. Interestingly enough, he is not a factor in Germany here at all as you could think given all the projects he worked on in the past, but nobody is talking about him in my country, which is indeed a bit surprising. The writer of the original behind it all is of course Ian Fleming, even if he is not credited this time. At least here on imdb. The screenplay is by Oscar winner Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby) and BAFTA nominees Purvis and Wade. These two are the epitome of modern Bond movie writers as they got picked so many times since the end of the last millennium, so they already started with Brosnan playing 007. And they also worked on the Mr. Bean parody. The story here is not too different than usual. Bond spends most of the movie in Italy, but we also see him in Russia and Haiti this time. The ending was actually in Russia and it was possibly the best part of the film. Everything in-between was decent as well, but somehow there was not a single moment or scene that was truly great and that's a rarity in Bond films for me. The scenes that maybe came closest to that were those with Giannini's Mathis as the actor returned from the last film were he was suspected himself of being a bad guy. But he was not. In fact, he is kind of Bond's only friend this time. When we see his corpse eventually, it is a bit of a sad moment, maybe the most you can get from this movie in terms of emotions. Bond's comment when being asked if that is how he takes care of his friends, namely that Mathis wouldn't care, was also a solid inclusion I guess in a movie that did not always bring the greatest dialogues. But Craig still makes some of them work. And his background with Green's character in the previous movie and how he is suffering was among the better parts too, also how M tells him one occasion that he looks terrible. On another occasion, Bond said that M would love to be his mother and that was maybe the funniest moment of the movie.

I like Mathieu Amalric as an actor, but I am not so sure if I liked his turn as a villain here. They tried their best with moments like the genital-in-mouth sequence, but he just wasn't that scary. I do think these films frequently stand and fall with the key antagonist and main villain. By the way, from the start and how he gets freed, I really thought that Jesper Christensen could be the main villain this time, but the movie takes a completely different direction eventually in terms of villains. Also the henchmen are utterly forgettable this time. I mean the fights they have with Craig's character are okay and wild and tense and dramatic, but we do not know anything about them at all basically and they just don't make an impact or feel remotely memorable. So yeah, the bad guys are a key issue here and really cost the movie. Amalric's character for example never seemed really on par with Bond unlike LeChiffre or Franz Sanchez in previous films, but I want to say again that I don't blame the actor. I mean who would say no to such a role in a 007 film. Just a questionable casting decision from the guys in charge. LeChiffre, the exact opposite in terms of how memorable he was, is referenced very early on, which is good with how crucial his role was in the previous film. Then again, it is all about grief here. Dealing with what happened to Eva Green's character at the end of Casino Royale and finding out who she was exactly and why/of she betrayed 007. Olga Kurylenko is easy on the eye, but her revenge story did not do too much for me either. There was just nothing new about it somehow and she also does not seem like the greatest actress to me. I do think she is attractive, but then again I have a thing for dark-haired girls. But it also means quite something when I say that, in my opinion, the pretty young Gemma Arterton stole this film in terms of Bond girls. Nothing too positive about Kurylenko, who sometimes looked more like a Latina to me here, but her character's ethnicity was not too different from the actress' ethnicity. As for Arterton, I am still undecided if the idea of her being all covered in oil there and the mention that her lungs are full of it meant a decent reference to Goldfinger and what happened to one of the girls there or a botched reference. Maybe something in-between.

There's more to talk about here. Another scene that I liked quite a bit was the one at the opera. That was kinda entertaining how Bond listened to the bad guys there and how they all leave immediately the moment they realize that somebody is aware of what they are doing. Very action-packed towards the end as well, but also the small moments were a success like how Bond made sure nobody would find the fella he took out to join the conversation by making it impossible to enter this specific bathroom. A few more words on some of the actors too: Anatole Taubman continues the tradition of German-speaking actors in these films. Being from Germany myself, I recognized the Swiss actor, even if I did not make a connection immediately and did not remember his name. Somehow I thought it was a French actor. But he did not have any material really anyway. David Harbour is in here as well, also always fairly easy to identify with his screen presence. But maybe he slightly goes a bit over the top this time. He also only has one scene, namely the one with Leiter and the bad guy in the airplane or what it was, which was supposed to show us that there is a fine line between good and evil I suppose, but this was certainly not the film's best moment. I mean come on, really? That they are in the company of the villain right when Bond seeks contact and becomes more and more aware of Amalric's crimes? Not too realistic. Many Brits in here too. Gemma Arterton I mentioned already. A bit of a pity she got no chance to become a recurring character. I like her a lot, even if this surely also has to do with me being a heterosexual male. At least she went out in memorable fashion. Leiter I mentioned already and this one is of course once again played by Jeffrey Wright. A pretty rare inclusion of an American actor in this film, but given who Leiter is (associated with), it's no surprise. He does not have a lot of screen time here either and not really much of an impact.

What did feel slightly too generic for my liking was some of the stuff they included here. You could clearly see that they took a great deal of it from other Bond films from years, if not decades ago. Not just the oil (gold) corpse that coukld not breathe, but also Bond getting involved with a woman close to the antagonist, even if the latter is ready to have her killed. Or of course said female protagonist's revenge story. I must say I was kinda glad that in the end they split and at best Kurylenko's character was a sweet way to pass some time and help him a bit over the loss of Vesper and that's it. The final scene with Bond seeking and finding somebody is linked once again to this key Bond girl from the previous movie, not to the one from this film. Speaking of Bond girls, there was also some flirting going on with other characters as always. Just take the one he asks if she could give the caller a wrong piece of information right after M made sure Bond loses access to all bank accounts. Oh yes, M (played by Oscar winner Judi Dench of course) also felt a bit generic here sadly with her professional relationship to Bond and how she is angry at him, but at the same time defends him near the end that he is her agent and, in the final scene, that she wants him back. We've seen stuff like that in other Bond films too. Her blind anger and friend/fiend speech was decent though. How he easily gets away from the headquarters, however, when basically being a prisoner, was too much. As for the (other) action sequences, also not the first time Bond falls out of an airplane and has to catch somebody. This time, it's the girl though and not an antagonist. So yeah, we do have some okay moments here and there, but overall, this film could certainly have been a more inspired watch. My final verdict is that you really have to like Bond in order to appreciate this film here. I do and that is why I enjoyed it, even if I like "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" way more. Talking about Skyfall, there is also no really epic location in this one here like the castle or like the casino in "Casino Royale". Craig's worst Bond probably (not because of him though) and only a good watch if you really dig the franchise. Not a great surprise Forster did not return. Maybe for the better.
5/10
I'd like a quantum of my money back
korereview2 March 2009
...not all of it, but definitely a good chunk. The most disappointing thing about this movie is that it contained many good elements, which could have raised it to the level of a classic Bond film, if certain other things hadn't been hopelessly cocked up. A lot of the cinematography was artful and beautiful, and they obviously had a good DOP. The editor should be burnt at the stake for taking all those beautiful shots and putting them into a blender. (It was about ten minutes into the film when I realized that I had absolutely no idea what had happened up to that point, because I couldn't tell who or what I was looking at on screen). The second most annoying thing about Quantum was its length: why on earth did they decide to shorten the satisfying 2+ hours of CR to a scant hour-and-a-half? It takes about 3/4 of that time just to figure out what the heck's going on, and then suddenly it's over, leaving you feeling disappointed and kind of ripped off. Not only that, but I think that most of the problems in the film could have been solved by just slowing it down and letting it run longer - the pace would have been much better, and it would have given the viewer time to digest and appreciate some of the finer elements. Just don't understand what happened here. Hope they sort it out for next time...
1/10
The Worst Movie Ever
chickenjordan14 November 2008
Not the worst Bond movie, the worst movie, PERIOD. Completely unwatchable. Nothing to do with plot or actors or effects... the editing on this movie was unbearable. There are two action scenes in the first 15 minutes that are cut so badly it is impossible to tell what is going on. Literally, 2-3 cuts PER SECOND... and from infinite random bizarre angles as well... You can't tell how many people/cars are involved, where they are in relation to one another or anything. And, every other shot is something exploding or being destroyed with parts flying all over the screen.... Seriously, that's one of three shots per second where just debris is flying on the screen. Unwatchable. It's as if they shot each scene from 18 different angles and put all the tape in a blender.

The action scenes are so impossible to follow, it made the movie too frustrating to watch. I actually left the theater after the second action scene - that's how bad it was. The editors should be banned from films for life.
82 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Bond
bdevons3 November 2008
Quantum of Solace is by far the worst 'Bond' film to date. What makes it so bad is the fact that is pretends to be a 'Bond' film! The previous Bond films have gained their legendary cult status due to the effortless class and smooth operation of Bond along with a gripping plot. The additional quirks, such as gadgets, one-liners and, charismatic Bond Girls gave them their uniqueness. Partly due to the cheesy plot and the completely miscasting of Daniel Craig, Casino Royal departed somewhat from the 'Bondness' which all its predecessors possessed. What it did have was a little suspense however. Quantum of Solace has gone one step further in respect of all the bad points of Casino Royal, plus is has lost all the good points. If the word's '007' and 'Bond' were not mentioned in Quantum of Solace you wouldn't know you were watching a Bond film, perhaps just a poor man's Arnold Shwartznigger film. There were no gadgets, no jokes, zero suspense, the Bond Girls were instantly forgettable and (partly due to the script) Daniel Craig lacked any subtlety, class or depth. I honestly cannot understand how anyone could give this film more than a 3/10. If you are unfortunate enough to waste almost 2 hours of your life watching this film, try watching any other pre-Daniel Craig Bond film afterwards and you will feel like Die Another Day should have finished with the words "The End". I feel I owe it to Judi Dench to mention that she added the only bits of quality and appropriateness to this film.
4/10
A very confusing film
jatinder3771 April 2009
QOS is a above average action movie however as a bond movie it's really quite poor and this is not because there is a lack of gadgets or the fact that it's a move away from the normal bond formula there just seems to be something not quite right about this film. There has been heavy criticism of the plot of this movie and it's quite rightly justified. SOmeone on IDMB has said the plot is not the strong point of a bond movie but let's not make it so complicated that after a while people give up caring about the film. With casino royal that felt too long (there was no need for the last 30mins) however even though this is not as long it still felt to long.

The film never really flowed properly and even the action sequences were not all that casino royal did have much better overall sequences e.g the scene where bond chases a man on a construction site was better then any of the scenes within QOS.

Also this is supposes to be a more realistic bond however there is still too much convience within the film, e.g Bond happens to find a tuxedo that fits him perfectly, I mean come on !!!! Also I still have my doubts about Daniel Craig as bond, while he pulls of the action sequences superbly I just feel every time he puts on a suit he does not look right, he can't pull of a James Bond suit like Brosnan did. He always seems better suited when he is wearing a casual shirt or a shirt without a tie. If you look at all the promotions and advertisements for both bond films you'll always see Daniel Craig not wearing a tie just a suit and I think that the producers might just realise this weakness in regards to Craig. I can't really see Daniel Craig transitioning into the Pierce Brosnan type of bond at all and thats my main gripe with these new films.

Overall if you want to see a similar film but far superior then go and see one of the Bourne movies
6/10
OK we get it
fatalglare12 November 2008
OK OK we get it bond is tougher meaner and less sophisticated yeh we know he can jump through windows run a marathon chasing some guy got it. it seems that quantum of solace is just a muddle of to many look what bond can do now action sequences. did you see that i made him get thrown through a wall or look everybody i made him fall down some stairs gritty huh.unlike casino royale where it had a good balance of action vs plot and it wasn't confusing to follow. the director was out of his element on this one and dangerously taking him to the very edge and removing almost everything that makes bond and almost turning him into john maclaine (die hard). the plot was unclear the characters made no sense and the main bad guy if you can call him that was such a puny character that my cat could have played a meaner villain and you did not care what happened to him. the starting credits were weak and unimpressive the song lackluster. it seems that all the cheese has been taken out of bond which isn't such a bad thing giving the new approach to the franchise but were left with a ploughman's lunch that seems rather bland after several tastes.

bottom line

give bond a great bad guy to beat up instead of beating up himself all the time less crash bang and more attention to detail.
Sorry sequel
johngammon5618 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If only they'd invent a machine for erasing memory selectively. They could keep one in cinema foyers, next to the sweetie boxes.

For some reason, they seemingly brought in a crack team of twatters to make this one – all the mistakes that you could possibly make (the ones that weren't in Casino Royale) are here. First of all, it's made like a music video, very confusing – there's little engagement with the viewer's modest needs for understanding plot and character motivations, little things like that. In the opening scene you can't figure out whether Bond's being chased or he's chasing somebody else, because all the cars are black. Almost immediately there's another chase sequence, demonstrating how little the makers cared about pacing their film.

Then we have daffy CGI fights, lots of preposterous plot points, crap title sequence, unnecessary dodging around the globe, one dimensional women, a clunky reference to Goldfinger, a crazy "empty hotel" finish etc. Big disappointment after Casino Royale – they obviously thought people would go to see the sequel in droves so they might as well not bother.

And yet there was room for so much drama. Drama I say, not action sequences punctuated by breaks, as though dialogue is some sort of filler. Here we have M almost being murdered by her own bodyguard, after being told by a suspect that his organisation is everywhere. You'd have expected a scene where the minister told M her organisation was on notice and all the 00 agents needed to be suspended or vetted etc. You'd also have expected M to be confined to the UK, not turning up in Russia at the end - unless she disobeys the minister's orders, which would have been interesting in itself. And the death of the carabinieri in the opening sequence could have certainly led to a police hunt for the perpetrator, piling the pressure on 007.

What good ideas there were are time and again wasted or confused. Bond's suspension later in the film seems to be forgotten about after a scene with Mathis, who tells him he can't supply passport, credit card etc, as they turn up in foreign parts. But the issue returns at the end, this time with M seemingly accusing Bond of leaving the service of his own accord.

This would lead you to conclude that, despite all the money spent on it, there's a lack of creativity at the heart of the film. What imagination in it is surface, like a video game demo. I suspect though that there was a lot of monkeying with the original script. For instance, instead of covering Fields in oil for the thrown away scene at Bond's hotel I bet in the original script the murderers left her on the bed seemingly intact. Bond realises there's a smell of oil, presses her chest maybe, and the oil spills out of her mouth. Then the scene where Bond leaves the villain out in the desert with a tin of oil to drink would have made some sort of sense.

Daniel Craig's great though – the only believable thing in the entire weary picture. Anyone else and we'd have left the cinema halfway through. Whatever they're paying him, it's not enough.
7/10
Bond goes Bourne
didi-523 November 2008
After the brash and fresh take on Bond which appeared with 'Casino Royale' two years ago, expectations had to be high for 'Quantum of Solace'. But setting it as a sequel taking place immediately after the earlier film is bound to alienate some viewers, as well as causing confusion in later years when it is shown on TV as a standalone film.

Daniel Craig is a gritty and tough Bond, with enough charm to reel in the ladies, but his fatal flaw in the context of the Bond series is his lack of humour. Rarely even a smile cracks those determined features. As an action man, he's probably the hardest nut of all the incarnations of the character. But action films are ten-a-penny, and the Bond franchise should be something that bit different to the likes of the Bourne trilogy.

The Bond girls in this are OK, although one of them has little to do other than allowing 'Quantum of Solace' to take a nod to Bond history and 'Goldfinger'. The other is a tough cookie who has her own score to settle, giving her a shared motive with Bond for tearing up the world and blowing away the villains. 'M', in the person of Judi Dench, is worth watching as usual, being given a bit more to do this time.

And, looking at Bond history again, was Vesper Lynd really the only woman he ever loved? Wasn't there a wife who was killed on their wedding day? 'Quantum of Solace' has lots of action sequences and a fair amount of gore, but it lacks energy and fun, and is therefore just that bit disappointing. I like Craig in the role, but next time I'd like to see a self-contained story with a bit more humour mixed amongst the bullets and the punches.

And the theme song is awful!
8/10
Another Strong Story Ruined by Unwatchable Action Sequences
bradley-trent3 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The rebooted Bond is much more of a human being than the icy hatchet-man of the previous iterations, and I like that. It brings the character up a notch on the scale of realism. But his evolution as a person and an agent, first denying and then finally releasing his grief over the death of a loved one from Casino Royale, the prequel, is marred by the shaky-camera, too-tight-focus, seizure-inducing-shot-cut rate that plagued too many action movies of the first decade of this century. Thankfully, that Paul Greengrass-style, nausea-inducing action shooting style is slowly waning. If you enjoy Bond as a character -- perhaps as presented in the original Ian Fleming writings -- just grit your teeth and squint through the sports, like I did. Then go watch Casino again for a proper dose of properly-filmed action.
1/10
the worst of the worst...has absolutely nothing to do with 007
biscotte6124 December 2008
First of all, I have absolutely nothing against the actor Daniel Craig but they put them in movies that are supposed to be Bond movies, well they are not.

What you get is a human "terminator" with matrix special effects. Bond is supposed to be a spy, working for the British Secret Service. A creation by, as everybody knows, Ian Fleming. What's left of that ? If the main character's name wasn't called James Bond it wouldn't even be a 007 movie because NOTHING reminds you of 007 any more.

What made the phenomenal success of a 007 movie ? Well, that it was actually FUN and pleasant to watch. You knew what you were getting because the audience demanded it AND got it. Let's face it. What is missing to make this a James Bond movie. Well... ALL is missing:

01. "THE" (essential) gun barrel opening shot ! (not at the end)

02. Miss Moneypenny

03. Q

04. Gadgets

05. Humor

06. a great orchestral score

07. a highly catchy melodic theme song

08. a special kind of villain (played by a well known actor)

09. an original villain sidekick

10. lavish sets by designers like Ken Adam and Peter Lamont.

11. feminine 007 girls

12. the "Bond... James Bond" line

13. Bond should be referred to as "007" by M, not as Bond or even James

14. Cigarettes (Bond IS a by Fleming created smoking character) (Yes smoking is bad for your health, but so is watching this movie!)

We get NONE of that. Instead we get: sadism, brutality without any reason, uninteresting one dimensional characters, unknown actors, uninteresting women (compared to Pussy Galore, Honey Rider,...) an uninspiring soundtrack

And whoever came up with the insane "idea" to put the new Bond actor at the beginning of getting his 00 status... in the present day ?!!! He already got that in the sixties ! Where's the logic ? It's a very sad thing and a complete waste of celluloid.

Bond belongs in the 60s, in the cold war era. Michael Wilson and Cubby's daughter are doing their best in milking the cow dry by creating a so called 007 for the new millennium. Shame, shame, shame... I vividly recall the time that a Bond movie was one of THE events of the year to look forward to. The feeling is gone, because the Bond we used to know is gone. This has nothing to do with me getting older nor being a fan of previous actors.

It's just the way that Wilson and Barbara Broccoli are desperately trying to introduce a hard and cold character representing the current times, meaning that the audience of today "needs" such a 007 make-over.

Cubby and Harry must be turning in their graves (God rest their souls). Show some respect for them AND for Fleming and either put Bond back in a 1960s surrounding or bury him... for ever.
7/10
A disappointing second leg after an amazing start...
sinncross19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beginning very soon after the events of Casino Royale, James Bond (Daniel Craig) has kidnapped the notorious Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), only to learn that there is a secret organization which has infiltrated various levels of social order around the world. Seeking revenge for the death of Vesper and more information on this organization, Bond goes on a rampage and discovers an interesting connection to philanthropist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).

Continuing off the intriguing storyline left from Casino Royale, it was expected that Quantum of Solace would continue to showcase quality story telling. With a run time that is 40 minutes less and with more action sequences, it becomes painfully obvious three quarters through the film, that the scriptwriters had no real intention of telling a cohesive story, and even less desire to create any characterization, the most prominent perhaps coming from Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) but even then its only because we knew so little of him from the previous film. All Quantum of Solace ends up showing is that there is indeed a bigger organization of villains. The events which are undertaken in the story are interesting to a point yet instead serves more as a backstage for the side story of Camille (Olga Kurylenko), which itself is very unimportant to the greater scheme of things, though it's nice to see a Bond woman get a more fleshed out story then in previous incarnations. Even the story arc that relates back to Vesper seems unimportant until the films end: it was a major arc going into the film but is somewhat underplayed. Another slight problem comes from scene advancement being inadequate a times. There are just too many scenes which don't gel logically. But there are a few noteworthy additions to the story. M and Leiter seem more important to the story this time around, M a little too much perhaps. Leiter's character is more ambiguous this time and has a story arc of his own; in fact it should be said that lesser characters are given some story time but neither of them truly affect the plot much. On another positive note there is more humour in the story this time around, especially involving the expected Bond quip after a dispatch. It is just a pity that the film doesn't use up more time to flesh out the story more. However it is very possible that the film is merely a bridge to the third entry. If this is the case, then Quantum of Solace serves it's purpose as the action story that connects the two more story focused entries. However this will only work if the next film brings back the intrigue of Casino Royale and allows for some character development.

Thankfully the action sequences are bigger and better then those in Casino Royale. While the chase scene feels awfully ripped from the previous film, there is more variety in what is shown, such as the various vehicle scenes. Though at times the action does seem somewhat muted. It looks good most of the time, but it feels like the director is trying to much to make Bond feel like other modern spy flicks, such as the Bourne trilogy, instead of trying to make Bond feel like Bond. So while the many action sequences are fun to watch, they do not help give the film a distinct feel. There is no major problem to the Bourne-like makeover Bond has gotten, especially for the character at this time in his career, as it allows him to come across as more brutal, but this nonetheless takes away from his charm.

Sadly the staple intro sequence of the film is underwhelming, both with its music and animation, which had far too much of Craig holding a gun, but thankfully had the female silhouettes missing from Casino Royale's intro.

On the acting front, Quantum of Solace is adequate. Dench is once again amazing as M, and Craig portrays his Bond well. But aside from the minimal character development his character has towards the end of the film, it is still debatable whether he could pull off a traditional Bond instead of a normal action hero as he is currently doing: problematic since the currently written Bond feels nothing like James Bond, and hasn't developed from his prior outing. Giannini and Wright are as good as they were before. Kurylenko is an interesting addition and her character, Camille, gets a lot of time to be developed. Her motivations in the story are somewhat clichéd and forced, and Kurylenko is not the best actress for the role. She does a decent enough effort to make the character passable. Her most intriguing aspect is her somewhat similar situation to Bond. There is a nice scene shared by the two, mimicking a scene between Bond and Vesper a little too much, but it helps develop Bond as still having some form of humanity. Mathieu Amalric as the villain Dominic Greene, is also another decent affair. He is no where near as villainous as Le Chiffre and as such there's little for Amalric to do with the character except play him out as more of a caricature, and in this sense, he succeeds.

There is some sexual content, along with some language and violence. The latter involving vehicle crashes, gun fire and melee combat, but none of which is overly violent.

Quantum of Solace is a fun film to watch but don't expect to hold the same level for depth as Casino Royale. The film is a disappointment since it had so much to expand upon but ultimately doesn't. The action is great, if unoriginal at times, and the acting is solid. But the film fails in several departments while bettering Casino Royale in others. As a standalone, the film does not quite not work, feeling seemingly out of place, but as a bridging film it does, and hopefully it is.
6/10
QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Marc Forster, 2008) **1/2
Bunuel197619 November 2008
Daniel Craig has had to face almost as tough an opposition as James Bond does in his movies when he took on the role of everybody's favorite British secret agent two years ago but CASINO ROYALE (2006) had effectively silenced his critics by being, for my money, one of the all-time Top 5 entries in the long-running series. However, I can see an onslaught of bad vibes creeping up again following his second stab at the role. Actually, he's not really the one to blame as his is a good performance under the circumstances; clearly, the major culprits here are the screenwriters and director for not really understanding (or caring enough) who James Bond is – and has been for practically the last half-a-century – and the producers (who should have known better) for letting them tamper with the beloved character far too much.

Before I sat down to watch this, I skimmed through online film forums to gauge the general reaction to the new Bond outing and, being a largely negative one, I prepared myself for the worst. While the film didn't prove to be as bad as all that, it's still inferior to its direct predecessor to such a dispiriting extent that the production team decidedly need to go back to the drawing-board fast if the next installment is to keep the momentum brought on by the breath of fresh air that CASINO ROYALE had been. It's well-known by now that, uncharacteristically for the series, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a continuation of that film's storyline in that Bond is more interested in rooting out the man responsible for the death of his precious Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) – despite his all-too evident bitterness (read emotionless brutality) at her betrayal of him – than he is in catching the bad guys in this one.

And, frankly, who can blame him when he's saddled with a potentially impotent wimp of a villain (Mathieu Almaric) – with an even more effete right-hand man – whose nefarious crimes extend merely to controlling the water supply of Bolivia to the detriment of the perpetually poor populace? Besides, Vesper Lynd had conclusively proved not to be just another Bond girl in more ways than one – being a woman whose death Bond was still mourning and a memorable character in her own right. Despite the beauty of her substitute here (which still comes up short, if you ask me, next to the stunning Miss Green), the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is so one-dimensional that Bond doesn't even entertain the notion of making love to her (a first for a Bond film for sure) and the one episode where he does go to bed with a girl – a red-headed M16 desk clerk (Gemma Arterton) that goes by the name of Strawberry Fields ('tis pity she didn't wear flowers in her hair, though) – seems like an afterthought merely intended to make her death scene a welcome tribute to Shirley Eaton's iconic fate in GOLDFINGER (1964)!

After the extended, breathlessly-paced opening action sequence, I wasn't too bothered by the rapid cutting which is said to imitate the BOURNE trilogy (but I wouldn't really know since I'm not familiar with it and have little interest in finding out) but, apart from a good sequence at the Opera House, even the action set-pieces seemed indifferent to me. Equally pointless were the cameo appearances of both Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright from CASINO ROYALE but the low-point of the movie must surely be the fact that the villain – lame though he might be – gets his come-uppance off-screen (which must be another first for this series)! The obligatory title song (performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys) has also received a lot of flak but, again, I didn't find it as painful to listen to as others seem to have. Significantly, however, while QUANTUM OF SOLACE is, at 106 minutes, officially the shortest-running Bond movie ever (which is all the more remarkable because it follows the longest entry of all), it feels much longer than that – which is never a positive sign. One final thing: I still don't quite know what to make of the film-makers' decision to go back in time with Bond – making him a still up-and-coming secret agent that has yet to earn M's complete trust – and yet have him operate in this advanced technological age of ours (represented by mobile phones and touch-screen graphics).
5/10
The strength of your enemies
petra_ste11 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How do you make a bad James Bond film, bad enough to be mentioned in the same conversation as Octopussy? Let's see.

  • Worst opening song in a Bond movie, rivaling only Die Another Day in terms of aural torture? Check.


  • Blandest antagonist in the series? Check. Not every Bond villain must be some freak who owns a volcano lair, but he does need to be more colorful than this guy. With his Hawaiian shirt and weaselly grin, Greene reminds me of some low-on-the-totem pole SPECTRE associate Blofeld would feed to sharks for failing to kill Bond. Medrano is your by-the-number sleazy dictator; I half-expected a scene with peasants paying him with the equivalent of his weight in manure, like in Woody Allen's Bananas.


  • Weak action? Check. Set-pieces are a tedious mishmash of quick cuts, with zero sense of spatial relationships. Marc Foster is no Martin Campbell. Get Brad Bird or Doug Liman for the future - Skyfall's Sam Mendes was much better, but still no great action director.


  • Weak script? Check. Reportedly, its development was crippled by the writers' strike, and it shows. This feels like an early draft.


  • Weak Bond girl? Check. Olga Kurylenko, a fine-looking woman, gives a vapid, mediocre performance. Gemma Arterton is barely in the movie before a demise which tries (and miserably fails) to rival an iconic scene in Goldfinger. It also makes no sense character-wise - Goldfinger was a sadistic sociopath; here, bad guys are as pragmatic and straightforward as it gets. Why would they bother with this over-the-top execution?


Not the series' nadir (both Moonraker and Die Another Day are worse), but close.

4,5/10
3/10
Just an action movie and not even a good one
Janbouli3 December 2008
Why they call this a Bond movie beats me, if 007 hadn't been in the title no one would have known it was a Bond. Even a hardened Bond could still have been a gentleman, and yes that Bond doesn't get out of a fight without a scratch wasn't natural , but neither is the way he gets out of the fights this time. And worst of all , where are the gadgets, where is the humor and sarcasm. No, its not a Bond and thanks to the awful camera work its not even a good action movie. Its impossible to follow a fight because someone thought that camera-work should be reinvented. The lighting is at best called a poor job. This could be the end to the success for Bond movies.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Glum, grim, grey and ghastly
Sjhm19 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh good lord. Casino Royale may have offered a different Bond, but this is a kind of Bourne- alike which really does nothing to add anything to the canon. In place of wit, we have Ms Strawberry Fields (really?) played by Gemma Arterton as a kind of cross between a pert schoolgirl and a refuge from the Joyce Grenfall school of undercover police work. Daniel Craig has to rank as the most charmless, po-faced Bond ever. The grim styling is more suited to one of those hard, overblown Euro-thrillers where the villains are interchangeable, and indistinguishable and one really doesn't care about the outcome as long as the action scenes keep coming. These do keep coming, but they are full of jerky camera work, intense close ups and high octane stunts that push the envelope of disbelief even further than some of the Bond's of the 70s and 80s.
8/10
Terrific action packed thriller. Daniel Craig IS......better than George Lazenby!
CalDexter8 November 2008
This sequel to Casino Royale is action packed brilliance from start to finish. Okay, i'm not a fan of Daniel Craig as James bond but he makes a great action hero in the sense of Jason Bourne or even Keanu Reeve's character in the blockbuster Speed.

For a new generation i guess, Daniel Craig IS James Bond. Pretty soon, you'll be naming your favourite actors to play the role the same way you name your favourite Tennis players. Guess that makes me a Connery and Moore fan. I believe its to do in the years you grew up in and the first actor you saw in the role which shapes your taste. Anyway, the film keeps you glued to the screen, Craig is playing straight action man all the way, little room is left for any character portrayal but who cares? Hes great in all his fight scenes and they are awesome.

The babe who plays Camille is gorgeous. One of the most beautiful women to grace the screen (well, aren't most of the Bond girls?) There are only two things wrong with this 007 adventure, and that is another crap title song that doesn't go with the theme of the movie. I wish John Barry would come back, Simon Arnold as a composer for the Bond films seems to make all his soundtracks (even the Brosnan episodes) all the same.

The other problem is no menacing threat of a henchman. No Red Grant type cold killer. No Oddjob oddity. Instead we get an awful campy, skinny bowl-cut assistant to the villain who is about as threatening as Stewie from Family Guy. I mean what was the deal with that bowl-cut? I kept thinking it was a special wig where he kept a secret weapon, but hey! Thats Moonraker territory right?

Oh Yes! Daniel Craig doesn't go heavy on his pout (like he did in Casino Royale!) Surely other people must have noticed this? glad to see you listening Daniel, and yes you ARE getting better in the role!

8 out of 10
1/10
I want my money back!
johngarrett91116 November 2008
The filming was absolutely terrible! I couldn't follow the action and I defy anyone who claims otherwise. I suspect the camera jarring was a lame attempt to compensate for the lack of creativity of the director and writers.

As with most films today, this one is ripe with Hollywood politics. It has the usual icons of the including hybrid and electric cars, multinational corporations, oil, environmentalism and of course, implied American greed and corruption.

Aside from the movie's politics, it simply lacks entertainment value and that is why I pay to see a movie. This one is a stinker and I want my money back.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No sense of adventure or fun
jeremy-jeffreys9 November 2008
Craig is a dull, dour and po-faced bond.

QoS is as dumb as The Passion of the Christ, and just as illiterate. Craig is no fun to watch at all. See High School Musical 3 Senior Year - the stars are better looking.

In The Passion of the Christ you didn't want to look at the screen as this pleasure was made loathsome by what you saw. In QoS you look at the screen (if you can stay awake) but what you see you cannot make sense of and worse you don't enjoy what you see - a girl covered in oil! And you don't care about any of the characters in the film.

You should know by now that these films are hokum. If the writers and producers don't have the courage of their convictions they should stop. Enough already. This was already evident in Goldeneye in which Bond is called a dinosaur and 'Jimbo' and the theme music drowned out by tanks rumbling along. They're either sending it up or dumbly and cack-handedly self-referencing other more successful movies to grab their reflected glory (a girl covered in oil - oh dear! this moment crystallised for me the cynicism of this film).

In common with recent films in this series QoS has no sense of adventure.

My favourite sequence (I call this pure adventure) comes from The Man With the Golden Gun where we see Roger Moore as Bond piloting solo the sea plane to Scaramanga's island in Red Chinese waters flying low to avoid radar. Circling the island and landing on the small beach. Superb! the plane is later destroyed by Scaramanga with his gratuitous laser gun. 'I call that Solar Power' - 'I call that trouble' - 'I am now undeniably - the man with the golden gun'. I must also mention the famous car spiral jump across the river, modelled on computer and filmed successfully on the first take! 'I never done that before!' says Sheriff J W Pepper when the car lands on the other side, and picking himself up from the back seat where he has ended up. 'Neither have I actually' replies Bond. Superb! There are other moments like this in these films. The last really satisfying James Bond film for me is Octopussy. George Macdonald Fraser was a co-script writer! (author of the Flashman books). Here there are several good pure adventure sequences. Roger Moore as Bond investigating alone Octopussy's train for the atomic bomb and later trying alone to get to the circus in Karl Marx Stadt in time to stop the bomb.

In Live and Let Die, Roger Moore as Bond escaping the crocodiles, the speed boat chase and the famous boat jumps.

Sean Connery in Goldfinger driving alone the Aston Martin following Goldfinger in Austria.

Diamonds are Forever - Sean Connery in the back of Professor Metz's van on the way to the secret depot in the Nevada desert where the Satellite weapon is being assembled. The two wheel car stunt down the alley - 'Lean Over' into the alley on the right wheels and out on the left! Superb.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service. George Lazenby escaping from the cable car wheel house and skiing alone to freedom - a fist fight with one of Blofeld's thugs who falls over the precipice. Pure adventure! QoS has no sense of adventure because the film doesn't tell a story in which we relish the telling - it is too concerned about not being a James Bond film. What a bore.

Could M just stay in the office and let the boys have some fun? QoS lacks also any sense of fun. Octopussy - The auction sequence at Sotherby's and its aftermath is great fun to watch where Bond switches the fake egg for the real thing and bids for the egg to test the villain's resolve. Superb. M (superbly played by Robert Brown) tells Bond to leave the egg behind as it is now government property.

The first James Bond film I saw was Diamonds Are Forever, and I remembered for days after the sense of mock doom, and the red hot submarine exploding beneath the sea as Blofeld (again superbly played by Charles Gray) deployed his ludicrous laser weapon before locking it on Washington DC.

Unfortunately I can't say anything favourable about QoS at all - I can't remember much about it, and I doubt I'll sit though it again - life is too short - there are other films to see & other books to read... For now Bond seems to be dead unless a new production team can breath fresh life into him. A team who are not embarrassed with the fabulous hokum that is Bond! I didn't enjoy Casino Royale much either - Bond does not have his balls whipped.

QoS - Not enough hokum, not enough adventure, no fun. I'll watch one of the classics.
3/10
I should have listened to my friends
jameslinton-752524 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was warned that Quantum of Solace was one of the worst James Bond films, but I thought that I would give it a shot anyway. Oh how I regretted this decision.

Quantum of Solace is just bad. Daniel Craig's James Bond is a clumsy fool, the film is bloated with explosions and action sequences and Dominic Greene was a crap villain. What got me was how SPOILERS Bond leaves him to his fate at the end of the film. What if Greene returned in the next film to wreak vengeance on Bond? (thankfully he doesn't') I bet bond would be feeling pretty stupid then.

Read my full review here: http://goo.gl/leRsrk
6/10
Good, but not good enough
alexandermussard2 November 2008
I went to see this on Sunday, thinking that it would be the same amazing picture that was Casino Royale. Sadly, it wasn't. Quantum of Solace still has the action, the girl and the explosions that you'd expect, but it is still missing something. By removing the gadgets, the car (only around for the first 5 minutes) and the improvisation that you'd expect a Bond flick to have, it has removed essentially what is a Bond film and what you are left with is the story. And the story was not that thought out. Many moments left me thinking: "what was the point of that?". The film is a lot darker, focusing mainly on the character seeking "revenge" but was not the film I expected it to be. A good watch, better than anything else at the cinema now, but not as good a film as I thought, and I felt a bit disappointed walking out. At most 7/10 but probably 6/10
283 out of 475 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Sad
markleachsa-12 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(No real spoilers that would make sense) Sad, sad, sad. The end of an era of fun films that started over 20 movies ago with 007 looking down the barrel of a gun in the iconic openings, and now finished in this film as you leave the cinema with a puzzled, "what the hell was that actually about?" Who was the guy in the car boot and why? Who was the consulate filing clerk and why? Who were all the peasants and why? What was that big pointless building and why? Who were the villains and why? What actually was the plot and why did anyone bother to write it? Was Daniel Craig the hero of the movie - James Bond? Or was the heroine actually the James Bond character? Or was the suddenly deeply sun-tanned Felix Leiter the real Bond? Or am I James Bond and this is all just a bad dream - or just a bad idea of a bad movie? Sad, sad, sad...
4/10
Truly a damp squib after the success of Casino Royale
wellthatswhatithinkanyway18 November 2008
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Opening up where the last film left off, Bond (Daniel Craig) is caught up in a car chase in Italy, which, being Bond, he manages to escape. He reaches his destination and a villain who's come along for a ride with him is to be shaken down for information. But the mysterious organization Bond wants to know about has eyes and ears everywhere and another dramatic scene unfolds as he is broken free. Anyway, there's a new villain on the scene in the shape of Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who MI5 have surveillance on. Bond is assigned to keep tracks on him and his apparent plans to pillage the water supply of the South American country of Bolivia. Sensing he's getting too close to the case, M (Judi Dench) assigns Agent Strawberry Fields (Gemma Anderton) to bring him back in. But Bond sticks on the case, and as he goes about his business, he appears to have blurred the line between agent and villain. As he is suspected of criminal activity, are his actions being motivated by duty to queen and country...or is he acting on his own personal vendetta?

Brosnan's tenure was up. The last story in Ian Fleming's original creations had been reached and all that was left was to go back to the beginning. This was the perfect chance for a new Bond. A sharper Bond. A Bond with edge and sass. A more raw, real Bond. A Bond for the new ages. He was a bit stiff and humourless. Made Tim Dalton seem like Jim Carrey, in fact. But he had undeniable presence, a sense of suaveness, a gritty, hard nosed Bond that looked like he meant business. His name was Daniel Craig. And his film was Casino Royale. It went over my head first time but on second viewing it was clear Bond had been brought back with a bang. It's even more clear when faced with something as unremarkable and disappointing as Quantum of Solace.

After another dismal, unmemorable opening song, we're back in business in terms with what Bond's meant to provide. The action, from the car chases, gun battles, stunts and hand to hand combat are all top notch, but with such little heart and substance to guide it along, it all gets boring after a while. The apathetic story makes things even more droll, and the overall lack of heart going on here really makes things bad, even with Paul Haggis, the acclaimed writer of Million Dollar Baby and director of Crash, on hand. Performances wise, Craig retains his presence in the lead role, even trying to loosen up, awkwardly quipping off the obligatory Bond one liners and the odd off beat quip here and there. But Amalric is a weak villain with no edge and even worse is Gemma Anderton and her ridiculously named Bond girl character. Though she gets mercifully brief screen time, her performance is so wooden she makes more impression *mild spoiler* as an oil saturated corpse on a freshly made hotel bed than in person. Olga Kurylenko as the main Bond girl also fails to add substance to anything.

In a day and age where lengthy 'blockbuster' films are drawn out with lots of back story, QOS deserves some praise for being the shortest Bond film ever. But, after the massive impact of Casino Royale, this only ends up going further to show the lack of effort and heart that's been put into this very disappointing second outing for Craig. **
6/10
Quantum of Disappointment
powerfull_jedi14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Today, as I re watched Casino Royale, I can't seem to shake the feeling that that movie was indeed better than I had judged. With brings me to Quantum of Solace, to which I had never felt so indifferent about it during it's full 2-hour run.

The director and producer must've thought it was a good idea to make a movie that would be fit for our favorite Austrian turned California governor and Bruce Willis, except that they forgot that Arnold and Willis were generally very colorful, in here we have a stone faced Daniel Craig who takes himself so seriously that the movie at points feels un-intentionally funny as it provides some embarrassed laughs.

Anyway, the first shocker would be to learn that this movie takes place just a few hours after Casino Royale, I'm impressed at how Bond magically goes from the occasional screw-up into a perfect fighting and killing machine, British spies do make the world safe,'cause in this world, CIA agents are worthless pencil-pushers with mustaches that spout endless platitudes and are willing to work with nefarious organizations just for a taste of black gold.

But anyway, Bond becomes the perfect killing machine and all it took was to snuff out his Vesper and in the process sets out on the hunt for the organization Mr. White works for and in the process uncover that terrible conspiracy by it's leader, the new Bond villain Greene, or at least standing in for an actual villain.

Be prepared for some action, shooting, flirting, a bit of tought interrogation, intense close quarters combat and no endless card game in sight, I thought it was a pretty good thing, but like I said before, I felt so indifferent to the whole thing. Every action set piece looks calculated, sometimes unnatural(like the hotel in the desert that seems to have explosions set on cue) and just too flashy. Not is to say that it's bad, far from it, but underwhelming.

As an action movie, The Dark Knight overshadows Quantum of Solace because TDK feels like a heavy and dramatic roller-coaster ride, while QOS is a tamer, less exciting and often predictable ride.

Like I said, the set pieces are unexciting and have a feel of dejà vù, as it they tried to much to make it feel like the older Bonds of days passed. It also hurts this movie's chances that the opening theme song is perhaps one of the worst I've heard in years, what were they thinking? I miss Chris Cornell's intro from Casino Royale.

Also part of the blame falls on the actors as well, I concede that Daniel Craig's Bond is what he makes it to be, a cold and efficient killer, but his entire motivation for this quest is revenge and the trailers make it seem like he's losing it, when you see the actual movie, he feels so calm and restrained, it feels more like a routine job than a personal quest, no offence to Craig. By contrast, Judi Dench's M is so distrustful of Bond that she will jump to conclusions on the slightest twitch, I wonder,why does she let him be on the force at all, since Bond to him, does nothing but steps on everybody's toes and kill off the people whom he's after? In short, if you miss on Casino Royale, Bond's motivations are very unclear.

The bond girl this time played by Olga Kurylenko has considerably less screen time, just barely more than her previous 2 movies, based on video game properties. But her screen time was worth it, it was enjoyable, she was hard-hitting, expressive and had no-nonsense attitude about her mission, which is also a personal vendetta as we later discover.

Dominic Greene fails at the highest level, you want to pass off this character as the owner of an evil eco-friendly company(That surprised me, I never thought they would go there) as a bad guy, nay... the leader of that terrible organization? Not that I didn't enjoy the twist, which is really was he is after, but other than that, he feels like a stand-in for the real bogeyman.

To cut this short, Quantum of Solace is a decent if underwhelming action movie. To watch this, I would advise watching Casino Royale first, or else it will feel like a generic action movie.
2/10
Bourne, James Bourne
fourGrand13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I found the movie dull, boring, trite, contrived, convoluted, rushed, & terribly edited, directed and written. I see a lot of movies, probably 2 a week in theatres, and this one was one of the first this year that I was actually considering leaving early.

The fact that they obviously tried to emulate the success of the Bourne series was evident right off the bat. The opening car chase sequence was horribly shot. Between shots of Bond's ear lobe, the steering wheel, and his foot on the gas pedal, it was nearly impossible to really understand what was happening. I kept thinking to myself: "Just show me the road for 5 seconds!"

Casino Royale rebooted the franchise. It took out all of the superfluous and gratuitous car chases, boat chases, and airplane chases that clogged the arteries of the Bond franchise after 21 films of redundancy. Casino Royale was such a hit because it relied on a strong storyline, plot, character development, and execution. Martin Campbell, who also directed the highly revered "Goldeneye" has the golden touch. Marc Forster, on the other hand, is totally clueless on how to shoot action sequences.

I think, ultimately what killed this movie was the very weak plot line: Evil guy who helps dictators come to power, then surprises them by secretly buying their major water supply – Pretty weak in my opinion.

Neither bond girl was very interesting, especially the cardboard-like Agent Fields, whose purpose for even being in the film other than to be a dead body covered in oil, is beyond me.

It was also very convenient how they jumped out of a burning plane and parachuted right into a major plot device… "They've used dynamite… there's an underground lake here, Oh I get it now".

The rotten cherry on the melted sundae was the Hydrogen-Fuel celled building at the end. As soon as it was mentioned that the building they were in was powered by unstable fuel cells, I thought "I wonder if this building will blow up. Will Bond have to save the girl in a burning inferno?" Unfortunately, I was right.

We're back to normal here, if Casino Royale hadn't been made, and this was in it's place, there would have been little deviation from the absurdity that the Bond films had become as of "The World is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day".

An angry, vengeful Bond is a cool idea… but they wrote him like a grade 3 would write the same character: sulking, angry, and expressionless.

The CIA side-story was also quite boring, and Jeffery Wright, who played a green, vulnerable, and human Felix Leiter in Casino Royale, was restricted to a maniacal, emotionless, robot in Quantum of Solace.

This movie lost the human, realistic touch that was the driving force in Casino Royale.

And the whole "running and fighting through small alcoves and apartments in Italy" was done, three times over, in the Bourne series.
9/10
Thoroughly Great
sterlin_rivera7 February 2020
Quantum of Solace wasn't as awesome as Casino Royale, but still managed to be pretty good and shows that Daniel Craig is capable of being a great actor for Bond.

The film is where Bond (Daniel Craig) has to go on a personal mission to find the blackmailers of his lover that died, Vesper. It leads him into meeting a ruthless businessman, Dominic (Mathieu Amalric), who was not only apart of the organization that blackmailed Vesper, but he plans to obtain total control of natural resources, and Bond teams up with a Bolivian agent, Camille (Olga Kurylenko) to foil his plans and save the day.

Quantum of Solace essentially was another standard really good Bond film. It's not one of my favorites, but I happened to thoroughly enjoy it. Daniel Craig did a great job again, and Olga Kurylenko was really really good as Camille. They both offered great chemistry in the film, and Mathieu Amalric was solid as the villan, Dominic, and knew how to deliver a villanous role for the movie.

The action was very well done and like the previous few Bond films, it offered great stunt work. The story was well thoughout, interesting, and clever. It had a nice revenge concept going for it too. The pacing was also really good, and this is actually the shortest Bond film ever, so it ran in a fast pace for an hour and 46 minutes.

All in all, Quantum of Solace was a great Bond film from start to finish and offered great entertainment.
1/10
What happened to James Bond ?
OzDrDj20 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Take any James Bond Movie before Daniel Craig, Take Out the Gun Barrel Intro, The Gadgets, Q, The Witty One Liners, The Suarve Bond Prensence and all the fun of Bond, and you have A James Bond Movie with Daniel Craig. Oh, should I add, remove the writing of Ian Flemming, although the story might share the name of a short story written by Mr Flemming, It shares none of Ian Flemmings idea of Bond. I have been a bond fan since I was 7 and saw my first bond flick (Live & Let Die), and have loved every Bond Film I ever saw. I have never walked out of a Bond Movie, until Casino Royale, I got about 20 minutes into that rubbish and left. I forced myself to watch the rest of that rubbish later on, but still, Just not Bond. Quantum Of Solace, no better, I managed to get to 40 minutes before leaving. Again, another lot of rubbish. Ian Flemming must be Rolling In His Grave, likewise Cubby Broccolli. Message to the Movie Studios, GIVE UP. You've obviously lost the bond plot, Go back and watch the classics like You Only Live Twice, Or Live and Let Die, Or Diamonds Are Forever, Learn what Bond is about before subjecting us to more of this Tripe !
3/10
Authenticity can make a movie, or break it.
Chris-360028 December 2008
This movie is easiest to describe in what it lacks. It lacks authenticity and style.

What in my eyes separates a bond movie from 'any action movie' is that it has it's own culture, it's own feeling. Bond saying 'shaken, not stirred' is not about the martini, it's about the movie giving off an authentic feeling. This movie lacks all aspiration to authenticity. It's really not even trying. The only reason it's a bond film is the main characters name. And that's a very weak reason to watch a movie.

If you like watching movies like XXX, Bourne and minority report, this movie floats your boat. It's just another one of those. If you are like me and prefer movies that at least try to do something more, something unique, or something that's different from any 1-second-shots sequence, you will not like this movie.

I hate to state the above. I have seen all Bond movies. And enjoyed all of them, except for this one, even Casino Royale. I would've loved another 'just a bond'. Even a change in the series, diversifying, would be nice, but not by making it just another shoot-out movie.
4/10
Is this a bond movie ?
Xx_Magic_xX9 November 2008
Don't like this movie at all , the ingredients for a real bond film aren't there... where are the girls , gadgets en a big evil guy ? The story is weak , and it's from one action scene to an other with no real point...

Sorry worst bond ever for me ! The entertaining level isn't that bad that's way i gave it a 4 out of 10.

I don't understand that so many people gave it a good score, is this really worth a 8 out of 10 ? I hope the next movie has a better story and has the gadgets and girls again ! This is your comment, you may delete or edit it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Utmost disappointment for great traditional Bond Fans
sanyam9 November 2008
I have to say that this film disappointed me quite a lot. I mean this movie is the first bond movie I have ever watched in which Jambes Bond doesn't go "Bond, James Bond!", it is the first movie without the appearance or even reference to Q, therefore no bond cool gadgets, it's the first movie, James Bond doesn't sleep with the Bond Girl. And this movie has some serious lack of the James Bond subtle and smooth character all while being the secret agent. This one seems like a commando attack, action packed movie like some other version of The Rock's movies but worse as it is not expected. This according to me although very different to the previous Bond movies which could be qualified as a breath of new air but NOT FRESH as it STINKS!
37 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent Bond flick marred by ridiculous quick-editing
Wuchakk30 October 2015
Bond seeks justice for the death of his woman in the previous film as well as those responsible for an assassination attempt on M (Judi Dench). The trail leads from mountainous northern Italy to the rooftops of Siena, Italy, to London to Haiti and finally to the secluded desert of Bolivia and Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a world-renowned developer of green technology. Greene is intent on securing a barren area of Bolivia in exchange for assisting General Medrano stage a coup there (Joaquín Cosio). Since the CIA looks the other way, only 007 stands in Greene's way with assistance from a retired spy and two formidable beauties (Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton). M wonders if she can trust Bond or if his need for vengeance has corrupted him.

Released in 2008, "Quantum of Solace" is the second of five Bond films with Daniel Craig as Agent 007. Craig makes for a unique James Bond and I appreciate the serious vibe of his installments.

The problem with "Quantum of Solace," the 23nd Bond film (if you count 1983's non-Eon "Never Say Never Again"), is the rapid-fire editing during the action scenes. Take, for instance, the opening chase-sequence that takes place on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy. It's a spectacularly scenic area. Unfortunately you won't see much of it here, just quick flashes; more importantly, you'll hardly understand what's going on due to the moronic fast editing. The camera switches about 3 or 4 times per second! I'm sure the filmmakers think such quick angle changes convey energy, but when it's done this fast all it does is confuse, disorient and ANNOY the viewer. It wouldn't be so bad if this was the only sequence like this but, no, after Bond's initial meeting with M (Judi Dench) there's another ridiculous rapid-fire action scene.

The filmmakers need to get a grip that James Bond is not a mindless action hero. He's too smart for that; he's the ultimate 'cool' attitude. Violence for him is an irritation resorted to only when necessary. He exists for the mental play, the checkmate and, later, the martini, shaken, not stirred; the beautiful woman too, of course. The only way the average viewer can successfully make it past the 25-minute mark of "Quantum of Solace" and enjoy the movie is if s/he drinks a pot of heavily-caffeinated coffee beforehand. If you do this it's an entertaining Bond picture with some effective sequences, like when Bond and Camille find themselves stuck in the remote desert after surviving a thrilling aerial combat, plus Olga (Camille) and Gemma (Strawberry Fields) are top-of-the-line, but the annoying quick-editing in the action scenes heavily mars the flick and prevents it from being in the top tier of the franchise.

The film runs 1 hour, 46 minutes, and was shot in England, Italy, Austria, Spain, Panama (standing in for Haiti), Chili (the Atacama Desert) and Baja California (the last two standing in for Bolivia).

GRADE: C+/B-
5/10
Casino Royal was much more better
Luigi Di Pilla2 May 2009
I am disappointed about this sequel after Casino Royal because the story wasn't so hot as they promised and I imagined. They wrote a lot in the press when this film was in production and I thought wow that is a must see. Then I trusted Oscar Winner director Marc Forster but he didn't convince me. Well, James Bonds role is more sentimental and I have to admit that I never saw him in this profile before but as I said the plot is very weak and built too complicated.

Even the action scenes were bad except the one with the flight chase. Sometimes I couldn't follow all the action sequences because they were cut too quickly and finally it was too fast paced in my opinion. The sceneries were not so beautiful. Sienna and Talamone in Italy were the only ones I liked. The last critic I have is the title song that lacks completely as in "Die Another Day". Also David Arnold's soundtrack could have been better.

I hope that producer Broccoli is reading my review . I advise her to wait next time until a good script is fixed and a better director for example Martin Campbell is found for the next James Bond that should continue it's mission.

Sorry, this time my rating is only 5/10.
1/10
Very disappointing
foxx_112 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To put it shortly - bad opening, boring midsection because of a dull script and bad ending. The mandatory action scenes every Bond movie starts with were over-edited, confusing and implausible e.g. bullets flying all around conveniently not inflicting any serious damage to a vehicle which obviously wasn't a special "Bond car"... The theme song was so annoying that I was staring with disbelief at the opening credits simply wondering when this overproduced soulless concoction is going to end... Then I really had hard time focusing on the boring conversations which were supposed to tell me who is who and where Bond is going to show up next - so after a while I caught myself falling asleep quite a few times, for the first time while watching a Bond movie!! I guess that speaks for itself... Craig basically kept his facial expression (stern face with protruding upper lip) throughout the whole movie and so did sulky-faced Kurylenko which must have been spending way too much time at tanning booths. Of course there was no chemistry between them which makes me wonder what a "Bond girl" is supposed to mean from now on?!? Speaking of Craig: I thought he did a good job in Casino Royale as the new tough I-don't-give-a-damn James Bond but after Quantum of Solace I want the good old witty, intelligent, flirtatious kind of Bond back. And I think he is not the proper choice to pull that off. What do we get here: no humor, no tongue-in-cheek dialogs, no Bond gimmicks... I assume this movie was supposed to be taken seriously, especially when he did the old trick jumping out of the airplane without a parachute:) To add insult to injury, the showdown tried really hard to convince us that the baddie (Dominic Green), a guy who looks more like a bank clerk on vacation, turns out to be probably the most dangerous combat opponent of James Bond who otherwise is chopping and mowing down every beefy thug within seconds!! Puh-leease... do you scriptwriters think we are brain amputees?? Maybe this is not the worst Bond movie ever but it surely is one of them. I hope the producers will try to get a decent script and a better director next time, if there is one.
5/10
Bond series goes ballistic sci-fi in "Quantum"
SimonJack26 May 2018
After a superb revival of the James Bond series with "Casino Royale" in 2006, this film was a big letdown. About the only connection it has to an Ian Fleming novel about the British MI6 and its secret agents is in the characters in this film. Otherwise, "Quantum of Solace" resembles a sci-fi film more than it does a spy thriller. The evil enemy here is such a complicated menagerie, that one is constantly trying to keep track of whom is who and what is what.

This film follows the trend of the early 21st century. It's an action film with almost constant, non-stop action. This surely holds the record of shootings and killings in Bond films. A number of other quirks stand out. Q and Moneypenny are absent, as is any high tech gimmickry for Bond's use. The exotic places of the usual Bond film are replaces with settings in Haiti and Bolivia. And, M and the entire British intelligence network must be suspect. The sci-fi aspects Include such far-fetched things as huge underground dams to dry up surface water supplies, and massive building complexes and construction in the Atacama Desert of Bolivia.

The film would have one believe that such massive works could be undertaken but not be noticed or discovered. So, all the modern sophisticated monitoring devices with satellites wouldn't detect a massive project in a wide-open desert? Construction traffic wouldn't be noticed? Thousands of workers used to build and staff such undertakings would all be hush-hush about their jobs?

Other Bond films have some far-fetched plots, but at least MI6 can use modern technology to discover some of their secrets. In its efforts to keep up with the modern craze for constant action in movies, the Bond filmmakers have turned an enjoyable and mystery-action series into a fantasy and sci-fi series.

I prefer the subtle, intriguing, espionage thrillers that Ian Fleming wrote for James Bond. Their occasional fast action and thrilling chases were part of more well-rounded plots. The type of uncoordinated mayhem in this film soon wears very thin. Daniel Craig alone earns the five stars for this film for the beating and rough times he shows.

After the best of the Bond series in "Casino Royale," this film turns out to have the worst plot and screenplay of the entire series.
No heroics to fix it this. It flat lines.
cdn_moviefan23 November 2008
This movie was lackluster in presentation. The previews make it look like an action movie, and it's any but.

The cinematography: The look is dark. Presumably, it's supposed to portray emotions. It does not do that. It's no where near the way Dark Knight pulled it off earlier this year. The view is mainly of darkness, but the actors are not believable in portraying their characters with just 'a look.'

Dialogue: Save for once or twice, there is no witty dialogue. Nor is there anything that makes you think: Hey, that character is really intelligent or whatnot. There's not enough background info given for a viewer to say: Oh, that's where he/she is coming from. Without that, a viewer has no empathy, understanding, or baseline to go with.

Lead Actor: I didn't go to watch it in a theatre. No intent to, as Daniel Craig was a name I never recognized. He looked sort of familiar though, and looking at his credits I knew why. I've seen Golden Compass. He was incredibly memorable in the Power Of One. Yet, I don't think he pulled off being the main character this time around. His performance did not exude what you expect in a James Bond actor. He is not conventionally good-looking, nor does he resemble a ladies man. The classy, debonair part is missing. 'Bond's' air of confidence comes off as total arrogance in this movie.

Casino Royale was a really good movie all around. Some people I know went to the movie theatre more than twice to see it. The difference this time seems to be the director. Both writers credited for this film were credited for the last Bond. So. What it comes down to is, I wouldn't pay to see a movie with that director again. Not when tickets are $11 each, geez.
7/10
Not as groundbreaking as they claim.
alanrayford11 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm a little disappointed with the direction these new James Bond films have taken. First "Casino Royale" was billed as a reinvention of everyone's favorite government sanctioned assassin. Now "Quantum of Solace" is being billed as the same, if for no other reason than it's standing as a direct sequel. But, the way I see it, these films aren't rethinking Bond as much as they're just making him dirtier. Many parts of this approach do have merit.

Daniel Craig's commitment to the character of James Bond is commendable. The guy works out religiously, so he looks quite imposing and capable on screen. Also, he wears this kind of dead man, 1,000 yard stare throughout both films. In doing this, the actor really demonstrates that the secret to Bond's flippant and cavalier attitude is that he's been hollowed out and relatively dehumanized under the weight of his job—kudos to Craig.

Judy Dench as M makes me wonder what the hell the franchise had been doing without her for over thirty years. Dame Dench is old enough to be my grandmother, but she still comes off as 125% badass all of the time. And her character doesn't have the luxury of being able to shoot people down to sell how hardcore she is. For Dench, just like with Craig, the acting is all in the eyes—fierce eyes that seem to dissect you.

Also, I have to mention the inspired casting of Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lytener. He didn't have too much to do in the first film. But in this one he managed to do something which hasn't been done before. He gave Felix enough charisma and presence to actually hold several scenes all on his own. Also, Wright manages to make Felix come off as being even more burned out than Bond—pretty badass acting seeing as how we only get to see him sitting down most of the time.

The stunt-work in these two films eclipses the work done in all of the previous movies put together. I'm not talking about the Parkour. I'm talking about the fights. Combat, as depicted in most Bond films (with the exceptions of "From Russia with Love" and "Golden Eye") has always been too neat. I never really believed I was watching two characters fighting for the right to keep breathing. "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" changed this. Bond takes some serious punishment, but dishes out even more. The scene I feel really showed this was in "Solace", when he was ambushed in Haiti by another assassin. The scene was short, visceral, and relatively bloody. Yes, Bond won. But he was injured and had to wash the blood from his face and dress his arm before moving on. Having him do this without flinching or even breathing hard really put in perspective how chillingly lethal this character can be. Now is where my review takes a negative turn.

Despite the stellar casting and acting; and despite the jaw-dropping fisticuffs, this feels like an old Roger Moore Bond film. You have a bad guy who wants to control a natural resource ("The Spy Who Loved Me"). Said bad guy is wheeling and dealing with corrupt locals to further his own agenda ("A View to a Kill"). There is a high speed boat chase ("Moonraker"). An overly elaborate structure, in the middle of nowhere, is destroyed in a series of explosions (every Bond film). Last, but not least, Bond has to have one girl for each arm (one to use and one to lose), because that's how he rolls—no matter how antiquated a notion of masculinity or unrealistic.

In short, I didn't find "Quantum of Solace" to really be that different from the 22 movies that preceded it. Yeah, there are a few changes. There aren't any super cars or gadgets, which could never exist in real life, for him to lean on. Bond isn't always dressed like he just stepped out of a country club. American and British intelligence aren't always on the same page. Oh, and there is now the great taste of Parkour—something I'm rapidly growing sick of. But when it's all said and done, all of this is akin to slapping a fresh coat of paint on an old car.

When the next Bond film arrives, if it is to truly be unique, go for an R rating. Bond is an inordinately skilled killer who happens to be promiscuous. Yet, the violence is never too graphic. The love scenes are always too sanitized to have any impact. Seeing as how this is a terribly violent and highly sexual character, the gloves should finally come off. There should be blood when someone is either shot or stabbed. It would be realistic to have people swearing if they were gravelly injured or dying. Also, if nudity was a possibility, there probably wouldn't be as many love scenes which serve no purpose. And, if there still were, a little skin would make them infinitely more bearable.

Instead of Bond stopping a megalomaniacal conspiracy, target his standing as an MI-6 assassin in a smaller scale story. Have M dispatch 007 to locate and kill an enemy of the state who has gone abroad. Stay away from the good old standbys: implausible car chases, gunfights in crowded areas, exceedingly complex set pieces, free running, exploding hideouts, and ladies who are only there to service the lead. Instead of this, throw in some geopolitical intrigue by having the British and American Intelligence communities officially be at odds (save for Lytener and Bond). Lastly, show that Bond is not the only 00 agent. If this were true, Britain would be royally f*#ked. After 23 flicks, I want a story that shows how Bond is much more of an antihero than outright good guy. Hell, after 23 flicks, I think everyone does—including the actors.
3/10
This is not Bond
mstynen11 December 2008
I read an interview with Marc Forster that a sequence was cut out of the movie, where Daniel says the classic "Bond, James Bond" line. Somehow it did not fit in the movie, he said. I understand why, this is not a Bond movie. This is just a dumb action movie with lots of shaky scenes where you can hardly see what is going on. I hope the producers will see the mistake they made and will be back on track on the next movie. I have seen all bond movies, including Casino Royale which I thought was a good movie, but this is really just one star worth for me. Daniel Craig will not have had any trouble remembering his lines. As soon as he starts to talk some new action sequence is coming up, most of them are chases on foot so this feels a lot as a bad Jason Bourne movie. No great Bond lines, and no humor at all in this movie. I don't expect a comeback of the Roger Moore time-line, but as the movie is now, you can hardly call it entertainment.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
No Bond Only Talk Talk
allypk200028 December 2009
This bond movie is one of the worst bond movies ever. The movie takes the start from the casino royale ending and soon it begins, the movie is going some where else and it is un known where! this movie is suppose to be the shorts of Ian Fleming's novels and therefore i have got to say only one thing that shorts should never be the part of the sequels because they are meant to be short missions rather than a mere complicated one. This mission was also short but the movie was prolonged so much which was not required at any cost. My rating for this movie is 4/10 and i hope that in the future Barbara Brocolli should choose a great screen writer and director who can put the story line up in front and in correct line. This movie has confusing start and lousy ending. i hope this would be avoided in the future for the sake of the Bond movie franchise.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Quantum of Nonsense
Doctor_Mongoose1 January 2010
I remember when I saw Casino Royale the day it came out in the cinemas in the UK. I had been ticking off the days, eagerly anticipating it's release and when I finally saw it it was so much better than I had ever hoped. I had a similar experience with The Quantum Of Solace, except this time by the time I finally got round to watching it I was going in with the lowest expectations and the film managed to pull off a miracle by managing to be even more awful than I thought it would be.

There is so much wrong with the film that you feel lost trying to pick it apart, so I think I'll start with the positives. Some of the action sequences are half-interesting and fairly neat in concept and the acting by Daniel Craig and Judi Dench is what you expect from both of them, but that is about it to be honest. Everything else sucks so much I'm surprised people still buy vacuum cleaners.

There isn't a plot to the film. It's pretty much the film equivalent of a dot-to-dot picture with all the action sequences planned out and then just joining them together brainlessly. This wouldn't have been so bad if the action had been completely original and breathtaking, but it is more likely to send you into a seizure due to the plain silly idea that a cut every nanosecond is going to make the action seem more realistic and gritty.

I think action is much more effective when you can see the bigger picture and take it all in. Seeing action unfold in a single uninterrupted take is like looking from the top of the Eiffel Tower and taking in all the sights and being stunned by the scale and beauty of what you see. Watching a sequence unfold from start to finish is what should be seen as a spectator. If I wanted to feel as if I was in the film myself and a part of what was going on I'd just play the video game. I want to be amazed, not left trying to figure out what the hell is actually going on in between random explosions and pointless shots of random debris! Of course, if you think that trying to figure out what is going on in the action sequences themselves is a challenge that even a team of Poirot, Sherlock Holmes and Clarice Starling (with a little help from Watson and Hannibal Lecter of course) wouldn't be able to get their combined intellectual nous around then god help you if you try to follow the actual plot. Most of it seems to consist of Daniel Craig running around looking moody and killing people for no real purpose other than hoping to trip over some information to why he's doing it in the process.

Hopefully, now that they have stopped making Bourne films, the Bond franchise will decide to move away from the flavour of the week style of handhelld incomprehensibility and make a film that manages to keep up with the tradition of the series, yet updated for a new generation, much like they succeeded to do with Casino Royale. One thing is for sure, by the time the next Bond film comes around, it will take a hell of a lot of shaking up for me to be stirred to see it.
1/10
What a shame...
sophiea2121 November 2008
I went to watch the new James Bond film today in the hopes it would be somewhat similar to the older Bond films. I was bitterly disappointed as not only was the story line confusing but at the end of the film I felt like I had watched and hour and a half of..well..nothing. It may have contained characters entitled 'James Bond' and 'M' but that is where the similarities ended.

It felt like Daniel Craig was giving a half hearted attempt at the role of Bond and did not do justice to the role. The car scenes were reminiscent of the Bourne films but not as good and there were no gadgets or even sexual innuendos which the films are famous for.

The film merely left me frustrated that they didn't do something more impressive and that I wasted my time going to see something that should have been great but was merely a disappointment. What a shame.
3/10
Not much to vote for - but its still a Bond film so one will see it
bodhistore13 December 2008
Hmm.... this Bond movie doesn't do it for me. First the Bond movies got ruined by hiring the ugliest man on the planet to play the part of Bond - who previously served as exciting eye candy for women. Not anymore. So Bond movies have already lost 70% of their magnetic pull.

In this movie, not only is Bond unattractive to the teeth (can't they blur the close-ups?), but even the environment in almost every scene is unappealing and has nothing to offer. The directing is bad. To mention one example; in one scene Bond walks into his hotel room his lover is dead on his bed, covered in oil. But you barely see her! Had I not known this take from a newspaper article I may barely have noticed her. Then you have the intro, which has now been added in the end of the movie which does not fit at all.

With Bond one usually expects: a good looking man (that's been thrown to the dogs) a lot of action with unusual situations a lot of clever new gadgets awesome locations (that too is gone with this film) quick wit and humor attractive ladies who are bold and clever and so on. This film is missing nearly all of the required stereotypes we love about Bond.

By the way, I am not one of those people who agree that Daniel Craig created the huge success for Casino Royal. We had a lot of crappy movies out at the time Casino Royal had premiere and people were desperate to be entertained no matter who the new Bond was. Almost anyone is willing to see good action films and with Bond movies, you're safe to a certain degree. Had nothing to do with Craig. If Craig was the cause of the films success, he would have created the same success out of this film. And he hasn't. All people want is a good story, great plot and a well told story that fits the characters in the film. It doesn't matter if actors or known or unknown if the story is good.
7/10
Dreadful
kodiac_city3 January 2009
A Bond movie without witty humor, without gadget and without class is just another action flick.

And when that action flick feature poorly shot action sequences, and look like it was edited by a five year old on Window Movie maker, it's a bad action flick.

I'm all for bending the rules a little for a certain look and to be experimental and arty, but this goes way beyond that. Bad camera work and bad editing is just that....bad. Maybe it was there to cover up the lack of proper choreography in fight scene, and maybe the budget wasn't all there to film proper car chase. Still, can't argue with the result, and the result is bad.

Too bad, I thought Daniel Craig made a fine James Bond, but he clearly wasn't helped by the poor script, shoddy camera work, vulgar editing and talentless, unimaginative director. Even the music lacked the flair and taste of previous Bond film.
8/10
James Bond is Back, and That's Something to be Thankful For
SylvesterFox0079 December 2008
Bond movies traditionally come out right around Thanksgiving. This year, "Quantum of Solace" was something Bond fans can truly be thankful for. Contrary to popular opinion, I liked it more than "Casino Royale." I liked it more than "Die Another Day." (Maybe not more that "The World is not Enough", but since that was the first Bond film I saw theatrically, it has sentimental value for me.) All in all, this is the best experience I've had going to see a Bond movie in a long time.

After seeing CR, I wasn't sure whether or not I liked Daniel Craig as Bond. Thanks to QoS, I have to say I still don't rate him as highly as Sean Connery or Timothy Dalton, my two favorite Bonds, but I now fully accept him in the role, and he may even be squeaking into a three-way tie for third place with Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore. In CR, Bond was portrayed as a "blunt instrument", starting out as an elite Double-Oh agent and slowly evolving into the martini-smooth super-spy we've all come to know and love. QoS continues that evolution. 007 is now on the smoother side of blunt, a thug that looks dashing in a tuxedo and has a taste for the finer things in life. He also has a very dry sense of humor, more apparent than in CR, but not as over the top as in the Brosnan films. Basically, he's awfully close to the character in Ian Fleming's novels.

Like CR, QoS represents a break from tradition concerning the older movies, but at the same time feels more like a traditional Bond film. Bond never introduces himself as "Bond, James Bond", but he never has to. He never orders him martini "shaken, not stirred", but it's implied. And these catch phrase didn't occur in all of the earliest Bond movies, either. All of the other elements are there: the beautiful women (Gemma Arterton and Olga Kurylenko), the beautiful cars (the Aston Martin DBS), and a vast organization bent on world domination.

Unfortunately, the movie's weakest moments are the action scenes. While CR director Martin Campbell has some experience in the genre, QUANTUM director Marc Forester ("Finding Neverland", "Stranger than Fiction") is more used to directing dramas. While some of the action scenes are inventive, the decision to film all of them using a shaky "Cloverfield" handy-cam approach was a mistake. The most inventive action scenes would have been improved by a more traditional steady cam approach, while the shaky cam doesn't really add anything to the more conventional scenes.

On the other hand, the character scenes really work well, and simple scenes, such as Bond spying from a tall scaffolding or shimmying across the wrong side of a balcony to avoid capture, become the film's best action moments. The movie is filled with welcome references to the older movies and Fleming novels (including an unmistakable "Goldfinger" reference). The Bond girls are great. Olga Kurylenko is beautiful and exotic, while fresh-faced Gemma Arterton's younger Bond girl steals the show, even as a secondary character. Her innocence and vulnerability make her unique as a Bond girl, and she's one of the best Bond women in a long time. Matthieu Almaric's villain is one of the least impressive in the series, but that also makes him one of the most realistic. Jack White and Alicia Key's duet "Another Way to Die" is one of the best Bond theme songs ever. And the classic gun barrel, as in CR, appears in a way that makes it new and exciting again.

Finally, QoS's short run time, just under two hours compared to CR's massive just over two-and-a-half, is brief and sweet and ends just in time not to overstay its welcome. All in all, despite the flaws I could pick out, I left the theater grinning like an idiot.
1/10
The Worst James Bond Ever...Daniel Craig !
Majid-Hamid21 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
casino Royal is stupid... and this one more stupid than ever... i can't believe that people are saying Daniel Craig is a great actor as a bond!! he is just plain idiot!!! not even worthy to be called a bond!!! he is the worse bond of all!! the story crap...the acting is bad as well...the script does not go very well indeed...

what else can i say??? casino Royal and quantum for solace are the worse James bond movie after all in history!!!!!! even timothy Dalton and George lazemby are far much more better than stupid Daniel Craig!!!!! overall...0 out of 10 stars........

0/10*****
1/10
Quantum of what ???
rajesh-scorpi10 November 2008
Quantum of Solace – The sequel to Casino Royale. When you find an estranged Bond, angry and dark, on the route of avenging his dead girlfriend (Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale), you naturally expect the story and the screenplay to be taut, with no loopholes and a neat script which pulls the audience in to the movie. Well, what we see in the screen, though, is a cropper.

There is nothing to tell about the movie, except that Bond travels to various locations, tracking a trail of suspects whom he kills later. Finally, there is the climax, and then the end.

I know the producers and the director are trying to take Bond to the new age – gone are the days of the enjoying, Casanova type of Bond flicks and in these two movies, the more sinister, dark Bond is portrayed. All said and done, this movie lacks the thrill that Casino Royale provided. Casino was a treat to watch with a fast screenplay and more interesting story. Here, as I said, nothing is interesting, from the beginning to the end. It's boring, frankly. I've never seen a totally boring initial Bond sequence, like this one. May be the makers are moving Bond to the new era, but excuse me – certain features of a Bond flick are expected by people and they should never be shut off. Also, the villain is a totally out of place guy who looks like he is going to doze off any time with an irritating accent.

The end leads towards a third installment to the story – a sequel, with both Mr. White (the one Bond catches at the final seconds of Casino Royale) and the secret organization 'Quantum' are on the loose. Bond has to track down both in the third movie. Hopefully, let it be as interesting as casino Royale.

Finally, my personal view about the film – It's totally shaken and stirred up, and I definitely will compare it with 'Never say never again' – the infamous unofficial Bond movie starring Sean Connery. I was thinking so far that it's the most boring of all the Bond flicks, and now there is Quantum of Solace, to overtake it! Better luck next time, for the producers.
5/10
How Un-Bond can you get?
rockenrohl27 October 2008
First I have to say: I LOVED what they did to the franchise - Daniel Craig was the best thing that could've happened to Bond. And "Casino Royale" was a masterpiece.

Well, QoS is not. Saw it today (Pre-Screening), and, as an old Bond-Fan, I'm really disappointed. Not only because everything is missing (from the lines, etc.), but because there's something wrong with the BALANCE here.

A good bond movie is always about keeping the balance (at least I think so) - between action and non-action, and between seriousness and humour.

QoS is far too heavy on the action - and it takes itself far too serious.

As almost everyone else has already mentioned, this is more Jason Bourne than James Bond - not a good thing either.

BUT - it's a damn good action movie. Sadly, not such a good Bond-movie (I don't want to see him drink six drinks and be a wreck, either - but that's another topic altogether).

Anyway: For the great locations, stunts etc. - 6 stars. not more.
3/10
Been there, done that.
Dark Raven3 November 2008
After Casino Royale the Bond franchise seemed to be getting back on track but after watching QOS one wonders if it hasn't tripped and broken it's leg.

All I kept thinking while watching was how better they do it in the Bourne movies and how Marc Forester cannot direct action. In fact it was a combination of the direction and editing of the action scenes that was the first thing to start annoying me as I watched (or a least tried to watch) the opening car chase and roof top chase. It's shot and cut in such a way that it's impossible to engage with it in any emotional or visceral way. You have no idea of the geography, how close one guy is from the other, what's at stake etc. There are no pauses as the character considers his next move. It's just shake, shake, cut, cut, cut, and then when things settle we see who won. Same with the hanging on the ropes scene and the boat chase.

Sometimes people complain about the overuse of shaky cam in the Bourne films but I could always tell what was going on and was emotionally invested in Jason Bourne.

The plot was muddled and there was nothing about the film I hadn't seen before and seen before done better in countless action films. It offered nothing new. Nothing. Craig makes a good if unemotional agent and Dench makes a good M but this franchise is dead.
5/10
Even less charm and shaky cam, sigh......
razzle-44 November 2008
I am one of the few, who didn't like Casino Royal overly much. The action sequences were great and Daniel Craig surprised me positively, but in my opinion it lacked the charm that I usually expect and love in a James Bond movie.

That being said Quantum of Solace went to the worse. Even more action compared to Casino Royale, which left almost no space for Bond charm, and with a great sigh I can say that the shaky cam now has entered the bond-movies as well :-/ The first two action scenes in the movie, which could have been cool, where more or less destroyed by a ridiculous overdone shaky cam that at times made it impossible to see, who was chasing who. It reminded me all to much of the second Bourne film that in my opinion also was destroyed on the same grounds.

So my recommendation would be: see the movie, when it is released on DVD and make sure to comment on the shaky cam, so that next time at least we will have a great action movie - even if it doesn't have that much to do with the Bond-movies we used to know.
7/10
OK Bond but lacked a lot
connor-macgregor31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
well i just arrived back and i have a lot of ground to cover. QOS had great action scenes not doubt about it but needed more story telling. I thought the writing lacked a lot from the last film as well and should have wrote more story telling scenes. Greene was quite a bad baddie lol he wasn't evil enough and could have been more menacing. I honestly thought the Bolivian general was badder with that scene at the end.Oh and speaking about the ending.Terrible really was could have been more...Emotional.The Quantum Arc is yet to be finished.With White still sniffing around will we see more of him and who is the head of Quantum?Overall i thought it was good but lacked a lot hence the title.Oh and almost forgot they should have used Mathis a bit more
1/10
What was that all about then????
Nitroidus8 November 2008
I've just got back from the Quantum of Solace. Without comparing this to any other Bond or even calling this a Bond movie, this is undoubtedly the worst movie I've seen in such a long time. There was action ALL THE TIME! Sound good? Well try and watching that for an hour and a half. It felt longer than the extended box set of lord of the rings. If I had to download the script then what would it be? 1 kilobyte? The camera-work is shoddy and left me feeling dizzy. It was cutting all over the place and was more suited to a movie like the Blair Witch Project. Until about half way through I was quite alert then all of a sudden my head just dropped and I realised how boring the movie was. There's NO STORY, NO GADGETS, NO Q, NO DIALOGUE. Most of the acting wasn't bad but then again there wasn't anything to act with. The stunt guys should have been paid more than the actors. No this isn't a good Bond movie. It's not even a good action movie. I can't tell you what it's about because I don't know and I don't care. How on earth it has a score over 7 on here astounds me because after the movie I was listening out for reactions from a full cinema and didn't hear anything positive. Casino Royale puts this rubbish to shame. Sack the director, sack the script writers and sack the camera team.
Where exactly is James Bond going?
angelsfang1 December 2008
So I understand that they are taking James Bond to a new direction, into a new century and giving him a new outlook. Making him less silly (humorous) and more realistic, more efficient. But doesn't that sort of defeat the entire purpose? Ian Fleming's James Bond series is more than just a spy thriller. Where is the womanizing? Where is the witty dialogue and clever retorts? Where is the whole "smile in the face of danger" from 007? James Bond is not a regular spy, he IS SUPPOSED to be over the top. He is supposed to make you smile and shake your head (but not laugh out loud). Don't get me wrong, Daniel Craig is a fine actor and all, but he just doesn't convince me as Bond. I have heard people suggest that he looks more like a Bond villain than Bond himself, and I have to agree, his cold emotionless face looks more brawn than brains. So I don't buy the the whole "don't compare Craig with Connery, they are different" excuse. Sean Connery IS James Bond. Daniel Craig is just a fantastic action actor.

The storyline is pretty bland. I won't go into detail with it because honestly, I wasn't paying full attention as I had lost it about halfway into the movie. I was simply disappointed that it's just scene after scene of fighting and killing, and not enough interacting. At one point I found myself wondering who would win in a duel between Daniel Craig's James Bond and Jason Bourne. They were that similar in style. Just watch any one of Bourne's films and compare for yourself. Yes I know before they released the movie they were already talking about how cold and efficient Bond would be in this movie, how he would be out for revenge. But James Bond also makes mistakes. Then he is either bailed out by beautiful women, or some amusing stroke of luck. Craig almost never screws up, he just kills and kills, then looks at his mobile phone for more info on the next target.

Olga Kurylenko is a pleasant surprise however. Had I not seen Max Payne before this, I would have mistaken her completely for Sophie Marceau, who also played a Bond girl in "The World Is Not Enough", they look so much alike. She is definitely a star on the rise. And trust Judi Dench to put in a great shift as always, she is probably the only James Bond character that looks legitimate as M in Quantum.

I hate to say it but I think the James Bonds are simply getting worse. When Pierce Brosnan came onto the scene, he also received a fair share of criticism but looking back, he exceeds Craig in the suave department. I always liked his arrogant demeanor and the slight smile he always has on his face. Daniel Craig just looks like a tough guy, a "don't mess with me or I'll snap your neck like a twig" look. Quantum of Solace is a decent action movie, so at least they didn't put 007 in the title, because it just has the characters but it is certainly not James Bond.

To Craig's credit however, Casino Royale was surprisingly good. Let's hope if he is to continue the series, they bring back the old style, the AUTHENTIC feel of James Bond, and not just some cookie cutter all out action shoot-beat-em-up fest.
6/10
James Bond Wussified
mlzzz17 November 2008
I wonder who the heck thought it was a good idea to wussify James Bond, having him white wine repeatedly (WTF?). I wonder how much the wine industry paid them. While the licensing geniuses are at it they should have Bond drinking a Pepsi, eating a Taco Bell burrito and wearing Oakley sunglasses in the next installment to one up themselves from the obvious product placements of cars and cell phones of the past.

Bond was agile, quick and opportunistic but strangely lacked the cunning and charm viewers have come to expect. I really liked Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and Layer Cake so I think the poor impression must come down to poor writing and direction.

As for the movie they have strayed dangerously far from the successful formula and not at all in a good way; the villain is the least menacing and charismatic in Bond history, there is no obvious scary lead henchman, the enemy lair is uninteresting and dated, the tables never get turned on Bond and the Bond Girl is the most average in terms of interest and sex appeal in decades (somehow there was more character development for her but she ended up less interesting). The intro scene was also below average as was the title song and presentation.

Supposedly they spent more money than ever ($230M vs. Casino R's 150M) but it does not come across as an expensive film because all the locations are deserts in developing world countries and other than numerous fiery explosions the special effects are barely mildly impressive. Also a few of the action sequences seem to be rehashed from previous Bond movies but not in an homage kind of way and not in any new interesting variation.

This movie was not The Worst Bond Movie Ever, but it is definitely in the bottom few in my opinion. It is also not a Bad movie, but after such incredible outings the last few times out, this movie is a Big Disappointment. Hopefully this is not a sign of things to come.

I would give this movie a 6.5 if I could, but it definitely does not merit a 7. I would give Casino Royale a 9.
1/10
Have we seen this before?
jimforgod10 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watch bond movies to have some fun, such as laugh at good jokes and see some awesome action. But these latest bond outings have been somewhat lacklustre .. my favourite bonds of all time were Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery, I do like Daniel Craig as the new bond but I just find that he lacks the humour and cleverness in his performances that previous bond actors had and it gives the movie a more serious tone which is unwanted. All the classic bonds had fun with the character but kept the plot serious and that's part of the reason they worked so well.

The scene where Bond gets his nuts whacked around by the villain was as a man myself one of the most torturous experiences is have ever had in a movie theatre after every hit a piece of me died.. and just added to how serious these films were becoming serious and boring.

It feels like we spend the 85% of the film in the casino watching these "interesting" people sit round the table and play cards which is extremely boring.. like watching people type on computers it's like *type type* snooooooorrr you know get on with it..(yes I know the title is casino royale but come on) and the other 15% of the movie I feel like I'm watching a Bourne film where someone's getting the crap beaten out of them constantly.

I do pick up on some on like 2 of Craig's lines which I guess were suppose to be jokes, hard to tell when he shows no expression or emotion there is no enjoyment no fun.. now to the good things in this movie.

I think Daniel Craig is a suitable replacement for Brosnan but it wouldn't hurt for him to lighten up you know it's already such hard times we don't want to go to the movies to see 007 depressed as well..

The pre-credit chase sequence was really well done.

The new Felix Leiter Jeffrey Wright did a very believable and good job.

It was good to see Judi Dench Back as M.

Jesper Christensen as Mr. White did a great job at being a mysterious third party and building up the next film but thats another story..

Last off Giancarlo Giannini who plays Mathis did a very good job of being Bonds contact.

But wait where the hell was Q and Money penny and the gadgets i mean come on when I first went into watch this I felt ripped off at the end when I didn't see these things.. and where was Colin Salmon? dear god..

I rate this movie 5.5/10 even though this type of bond film has things going for it I feel like I'm missing out on some of the key elements of what makes a bond film a bond film those being the humour and the gadgets, i really thing the producers and directors need to have a serious bloody look at all of the original bonds and some of the later ones to get a grip on what true fans of the series want out of upcoming films.. and in case their a little confused and what some of these films are I'll list a few of them.. Goldfinger, Thunderball, Tomorrow Never Dies, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Dr. No and Goldeneye dare I go on.. I will only wonder if I have written this review in vain and that this skyfall will Fall flat on it's face and have learnt nothing from this movie but hey maybe I have this completely wrong considering this has 8 star rating..
7/10
Bond Back in Action
WriterDave15 November 2008
As one of the few people who thought that "Casino Royale" was just okay, I found its action-packed sequel "Quantum of Solace" to be genuinely entertaining. The film picks up exactly where the last one left off, but thankfully leaves its predecessor's bloated sense of self-importance and run-time behind. Thanks to the tone set previously by Daniel Craig, this Bond maintains the darker hard edge. Directed with appropriate kinetic zeal by Marc Forster, the film never lets up and takes Bond away from that all that silly deep introspection and returns him to pure action while still playing a strong hand with its "this time its personal" theme.

There's really not much more to say about such an indomitable franchise. Of course, in an attempt to appeal to audiences who have preferred Jason Bourne over James Bond in recent years, some of the action has a slap-dash over-edited feel, but never in a Bourne film would you find exploding planes and death-defying stunts involving every mode of transportation except by train. "Quantum of Solace" also suffers from one of the worst Bond themes and opening credit sequences ever, but really, who cares about that?

The bottom line: Craig is as cold as ice and the action and the women are smoldering hot. "Quantum of Solace" successfully serves up a healthy dose of Bond-fueled entertainment that will leave you shaken but not stirred.
4/10
B-class Jack Bauer
janne-junnonen19 March 2009
I did not like the Daniel Craig Bond debut, Casino Royale. The film was not a typical Bond, it was just an average action movie with weird directing and uninspiring acting, and it was sometimes even boring.

The same applies to this film, Quantum of Solace, except that it is shorter than its predecessor, and does not have many boring scenes. However, most earlier Bond films manage to fill over two hours of film without no problems.

To me, the current Bond is just a B-class Jack Bauer. Sure the movie has more dramatic action sequences than the TV-series (because of $$$), but Daniel Craig and his character are totally uninspiring and lack any charisma. He is nothing like the previous Bonds. Some people like that, but I do not.

The script is also weak and directing weird. In fact they are so bad that the film is in many ways not even as believable as previous Bond films, even though many individual scenes are more realistic and not so "over the top" as in previous films (is that a good thing for a Bond film is another question). There aren't even any Bond tech gadgets in this film.

All this means that this Bond is not really a "Bond" at all, just an average action movie with big budget. There is not much in particular to like in this film, in fact I hated most of it. Even the action sequences were not that good in my opinion.
2/10
Another male icon destroyed by feminism
Bigbang7 February 2010
Ugh, they've ruined Bond. A perfect example of our anti-male times. Sean Connery's Bond was cool, sophisticated, and smooth with the ladies, but the most important part is he was completely unapologetic about it. No groveling and apologizing for being a man. He was a "womanizer"...so? He loved women, enjoyed being with them, and they loved him back. What's the problem? He treated them kindly but didn't take any crap from them.

They began pecking away at Bond when Pierce Brosnan stepped in. I liked Pierce as Bond, but As soon as I heard M say "I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur", I knew we were in trouble. They had to knock him down a few notches because we can't have a confident, guilt-free man walking around like that.

Now with Daniel Craig, we no longer have a man anyone can look up to. He's just another charmless, humorless movie thug. All Bond's qualities have been stripped from him by the feminist tyrants and their pussywhipped male enablers. Bond was ours and that bothered them. Now there's one less male icon guys can admire, and we let it happen.
10/10
Bond, James Bond in the style of Bourne,Jason Bourne
greene5153 November 2008
Quantum of Solace (2008) is the twenty second and counting bond production to date with the new bond Daniel Craig, in my own opinion this isn't a stand alone bond per Se but more of a companion piece to it's predecessor 'Casino Royale' where it pick's up moment's from where Casino Royale concluded, unfortunately my own nitpick's of the film is the absolutely terrible title 'song' another way to die 'sung' by Jack White and Alicia Keyes' they really should of stayed with first choice Amy Winehouse. gone is the traditional linear editing this makes it very unclear what is going on in the fight scenes but i guess it's realism is what the filmmaker's are going for or that they are trying to compete with the Bourne identity. the villain played by Matthieu amaracic who resembles Roman Polanski)who play's the villain Domnic Greene is more or less an unconventional choice which also remind's one of Louis Jordan in 'Octopussy' the obligatory Bond Girl Olga Kuryenko is simply a stunning addition to the series, expendable Gemma Atherton play's Agent Field's it is later revealed in the credit's ( her first name is strawberry) the late Roy Kinnear's son Rory make's a welcome addition to the series as an aid to 'M' Dame Judi Dench who like Casino Royale is given more to do. unfortunately with it's frenetic hand held photography and editing Quantum of Solace certainly deserves another viewing to fully appreciate it. all in all an entertaining companion piece to Casino Royale'
3/10
Save your money and rent the DVD
rscampb15 November 2008
I was entirely disappointed with this installment of the 007 movies. They have done away with all the neat gadgets that Q would make for Bond. No bullet proof car. No mini mines. No nothing. They have stripped almost all the humor (there was only two laughs from the audience when I was there). Bond would charm the girls with a double entendre, trade barbs with the bad guys just before defeating them then go off with the girl. That is all gone. They changed the opening. The moving eye and Bond shooting is in the closing credits. The silhouetted girls swimming during the theme song is gone. There is no lead in we are just thrown into an action scene. I think that in the entire 2 hours there was about 10 minutes of dialogue. The rest was shooting, fighting, one car chase, a boat chase and a dogfight. Basically it is a generic action film script (think the Jason Bourne films). If that is your thing then this is your film. But if you are looking for a traditional Bond film stay away this ain't it.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
a bit disappointed.
mnemon0713 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well....Its not that I have high hopes and expectations from a James Bond movie, but these movies are suppose to be funny and witty, with lots of new gadgets, beautiful girls and horrific villains. Where is "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die", where is "shaken no stirred", where is "I thought Christmas comes only once a year", where is "Q" or "R" with laser lighters and exploding pens? None of these elements where in this movie. This was just another action movie, nothing really spectacular or memorable. You wouldn't think its James Bond, if the title wouldn't say so. Now about the Plot. What? All this work, overthrowing the government, dealing with the CIA just to sell a fresh water to Bolivia at higher prices? Those damn utility companies. Is it me or does it seem like the writers ran out of the ideas. Again, I don't expect the Jams Bonds plots to be plausible, but at least it should be something grand like: "villain is trying to suck,compress, and liquefy all the world's air into the underground chamber, so he will sell it back to public." . Instead of increasing the water bill utility by 50% in Bolivia, what is it, the whole $7000 more a month. I guess in these economic times we have to kill a lot of people for $7000 a month.
2/10
you may need a quantum of solace after this one
groovewithtim27 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale " with Daniel Craig was borderline fine for a Bond film. This one just plain stinks in my opinion. It has some decent action sequences (mostly with the plane) but it's too much action and not enough drama and bond women. I was sadly disappointed by the finale in the desert which was just a notch better than many shows on TV.

At some points I could hardly believe I was watching a bond movie. Giancarlo Giannini delivers a good performance but he's killed off far too early in my opinion. i wanted to see much more of him. The bond girls themselves are okay, but not much compared to sexy bond girls of the past. Gemma Artenton is good but her role is so small you don't even get to see her. Olga Kurylenko is okay and she has more character development but it nearly drowns Bond's own personal story, which is far more interesting.

There was hardly even any of the usual Bond theme music, very disappointed. Okay to check out, but only as a rental.
4/10
No charm or personality. And that's sad.
penguinblooz14 November 2008
The charm and personality of James Bond is missing in this new outing - Quantum of Silence. So much so, that if one were to remove the name of the characters and replace them with any other name, you would be hard pressed to identify this as a Bond movie at all.

The direction, editing and writing is manic, busy and incoherent. The opening action scene is unexplained and the hand-held camera shot takes you out of the action; you spend more time trying to discern what is going on that you don't for a second feel a part of the action. Bond movies didn't use to do this; they never pulled away from the action. The 1970s Roger Moore films arguable had the best stunts because they were fantastic - and done without digital effects. Think about the cool car stunt scene is View to a Kill; people talked about that for weeks. There is not one stunt piece that would wow anyone on that order.

However, the makers this time focus all their attention on the stunts, but forget that we come for the character. In the quiet scenes, there is a sense, yes, that this could be a Bond movie. Daniel Craig is great in the role but he needs to be able to act. Most of the time, he does not even talk. James Bond is a great spy because he is armed with his wits as much as his arsenal of weapons, but there were few instances of that in this movie.

Bond films stand apart from standard action films because they bear repeat viewings. I have almost all Bond films at least 10 to 15 times each. Except Casino Royale. It is a great film; I own it. But it is not a movie I enjoy watching over and over. It is miles better than the new one. I am not going to watch Quantom of Silence again. The movie just made me so angry.

I hope in the new Bond film, they bring back Bond, his girls, his charm and those elements that make Bond, Bond. I think the makers in their effort to reboot the character were so worried by their character and the possibility for cheese, they removed all traces of personality.

And that's sad.
4/10
A very poor Bond film
roger-pettit15 June 2012
I love the James Bond films. And I like Daniel Craig as Bond. But "Quantum of Solace", Craig's second appearance as the British Secret Service agent, is surely one of the worst films in the Bond canon. It is an extremely dull film that contains little of the trademark fun, wit and panache that are present in most of the rest of the series.

One does not expect plausibility or realism in a Bond film. But is it too much to hope for a coherent and lucidly portrayed plot (however unrealistic it may be)? You certainly do not get such qualities in Quantum of Solace, the plot of which is difficult to follow. It contains so many seemingly unexplained strands and incidents that I gave up trying to understand what was happening. Even rewinding the DVD to check particular incidents does not help. The basis of the story is a dastardly scheme hatched by international environmental entrepreneur and activist, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who runs a company known as Greene Planet. He appears to be intent on exploiting the natural resources in Bolivia and other South American countries for financial gain. He also appears to be a member of a secret organisation that was responsible for killing Vesper, the love of Bond's life, at the end of Craig's first outing as Bond, in Casino Royale. These two plot strands coalesce in this film. But they do not do so in a comprehensible way.

Quantum of Solace is poorly written and badly directed. Its pacing is all wrong. The film seems to consist of one spectacular stunt after another, particularly during the opening hour. The viewer is treated to a car chase along a dangerous winding road, a punch-up in a hotel bedroom in Haiti and a spectacular boat chase all within the first 20 minutes or so. Those incidents signpost events in the rest of the film, which is tired and empty. The acting from Craig and from Judi Dench (as M) is fine. But the principal villain (Amalric) cannot hold a candle to some of the previous Bond baddies. He is dull and uninteresting, as is the film. The best thing about Quantum of Solace is the ending - both because it is a bit different from that in most Bond films and because, well, it is the ending (which cannot come a moment too soon)! One for Bond loyalists only, I fear. 4/10.
6/10
Not bad not good.
mm-3918 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is not a bad movie or a good movie. The movie is a mix of the older Sean Connery James Bond movies and The Jason Bourne movies. The action is identical to the Jason Bourne movies. On a personal note, I like the Bourne movies better. Quatum of Solace is only a 1 and a half hour movie. A little too short for my taste. I heard the reason for the short running time was the last Bond movie would be too long and the 1 and a half hour movie Quantum of Solace is the continuation the last Bond story. The movie is based off the book Casion Royal and books usually make for long movies. Craig, the new Bond lacks the humor of the older Bonds, a part which is needed to relieve the intents action of the films. I give Quantum of Solace 6 out of 10 Spies. OK to go out and see, even better to rent.
2/10
Idiotic. Baseless. RIP.
fai8510 November 2008
When they found a new bond in Daniel Craig after the impressive legacy of Pierce Brosnan, we didn't say anything. When they made a Casino Royale, we didn't say anything. But now that they had enough balls to lower their standard to such an extent as a Quantum of Solace (not mentioning such a ridiculous name), its enough! I really cant understand how a movie with a script which doesn't know where its headed, let alone where it came from, can be approved. The movie is practically lost right from the beginning, and doesn't find its footing till the very end. The very essence that people look forward to in Bond films is the anticipation of a tight script, racy action, world class gadgetry, and of course- the girls. Lets start from the first- the script is so messed, that the makers are practically trying to understand it themselves, let alone any degree of comprehension flowing down to the audience. Thats not to say it does not have its moments, but the problem is, they are few, and come far between. Definitely not enough to have you gripping the arms of your seats and wanting for more. Director Marc Forster wants to do a 'handheld camera realism' aka Paul Greengrass in his actions sequences, and goes so overboard in his excitement with quick flashes and irrelevant angles, that you are left searching for frames and asking your partner to fill you in into what just happened. Its enough for a skewed eye patient to correct his alignment practically! There is absolutely nothing in for the Bond gadget freaks, not even a quick peek into what we all wait to see- the inside of Bond's car. So pals, forget about fancy tech equipment, cell phones, arsenal etc. Its a thorough disappointment in this regard. I mean.. when you have Bond films such as die another day in the league, you just gotta better yourself right??

The performances are absolutely way below mediocre. Olga Kurylenko has a highly overdone tan and desperately needs a crash course in acting. Not even worth an eye candy here. Daniel Craig seriously needs to re-think is career as an actor, with just one modelled expression all throughout the movie, the franchisee really needs help. Commenting on Gemma arterton is a waste of my time and this space. Probably the only performance that is warm is that of Jeffery Wright.

In the end, a waste of a whole lotta bucks to make a emotionally unstable camel with short handed actors, and an over enthusiastic keeper. The beginning of the end of Bond.
3/10
What was this all about?
jimattrill27 March 2010
Terrible signature tune followed by a car chase that reminded me of watching Lord of the Dance DVD with 1 sec clips added together ad nauseum (literally), no gadgets, no humour, no story, nothing at all. Dead boring, to tell the truth. If I hadn't been watching a borrowed DVD I would have asked for my money back. If I had read the reviews in IMDb first I could have avoided it altogether. Maybe I missed it but there didn't seem to be any 'romantic' element with the Bond Girl. Possibly I was asleep at the time or reading the newspaper. Yes, maybe the scriptwriters were on strike but that is no excuse for getting the plot made by someone in primary school. Did the producers of this rubbish actually watch it before sending it on circuit?
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bourne to do it
deastman_uk31 October 2008
This is not a Bond film. It isn't a self contained event action epic movie. In fact it is a relatively sparse, short affair. It's part of maybe a trilogy, and makes little sense without Casino Royale and the events that started there.

Yes, some of the action sequences clearly are inspired by the other action spy franchise, as well as the reduced script. But there is still plenty of Bond pomp, perhaps without the outmoded humour. Set design is still a work of art.

Taken on its own, this film is not remarkable, or special. It is clearly a last shedding of the old skin, that happens to resemble a few other action films. Its fitter, and more business like than before, but the old friend is still there somewhere.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
where is Bond??? James Bond
willdavis691 September 2011
After casino royale being Bond's first mission and Daniel Craigs first outing I was not surprised that they would go for a grittier Bond image. Great and Entertaining. But in the next installment I figured we'd have James back and not a sequel to the previous film. Where are the gadgets,Where are the cool one liners, Where is Q, Where is moneypenny? I LOVE the James Bond franchaise but I want what I love about it that sets it apart from every other action adventure series instead of James Bond we are getting a British version of Jason Bourne And enough with the annoying Mtv style editing it was the main reason why I hated the mission impossible movies & why I'm beginning to hate this franchaise. You've guys have one more chance to sell me on Mr. Craig though I blame the writing and directing more than I blame him. Let's hope it's not a failure for me like this one was, or I guess I'll have to settle for Brosnan and Dalton as the last great Bonds.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Worst Daniel Craig Bond Film
theresamgill12 June 2018
To understand this film, think of it as a trigger-happy Bourne film. And I mean that in one of the worst ways possible. The editing is atrocious. The film takes a Matrix Reloaded approach and stacks action on action; however, it's not even as successful as that film. The opening action sequence has one decent moment, but anyone able to follow the rapid edits deserves an award. What such rapid editing tends to correlate with is weak content to begin with. Some well thought out long shots could've worked effectively, but the truth is that there just isn't anything special about the action set-pieces besides perhaps locale. And don't even mention the parachute opening 10 feet above the ground. You can't walk away from that without an injury.



Although I can appreciate some of what Jack White accomplished with "Another Way to Die," Alicia Keys only takes away from the song-- making it and the corresponding animation the worst theme as well. The Bond Girls are the worst as well. Let's see, what other worsts does it have... Oh yeah! The villain is so uninteresting. And it's so obvious during the climax that there's no way he could even put up a fight against Bond.



Despite going for the darker, remorseless tone, I actually felt that Daniel Craig brought some of his greatest charm in this film. Even though there really isn't any cool dialogue to accompany him, I feel that after already having one round as the famous Brit, Craig was tailored in his approach to the character, and it's one of the aspects that pays off for the film.



But enough praise. The film has annoying characters, and even when trying to fit elements from the previous film, the plot is so basic and not memorable in any way. But when you have an action flick, almost all can be forgiven with quality action. And the film just falls flat. Not only is this the worst Craig Bond film, it just isn't a quality picture. It's a misstep, and that probably contributed to the gap between this film and the next one. You can find this review and dozens of others at gillipediamoviereviews.blogspot.com
2/10
This director's ego has got to be deflated. (Spoiler)
gparob16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me try to start with the positive. I thought that the plot had great potential. I thought the acting was fine (especially Judi Dench). I walked away horribly disappointed, however. Here's why: 1. Would someone please tell Hollywood that the hand held camera idea was cute for maybe a couple of months, not a decade? PLEASE move on. Some of us would like to actually SEE more detail in what's going on. Especially with higher def movie projectors, and TVs, once it hits DVD. 2. Would someone please tell this director, and warn Hollywood, that if you're going to pay to do a stunt, the audience wants to (gasp) see how it ends. This movie has an awful habit of cutting to the next scene just as the action takes place. So we see the action, not the effect. Example (not much of a spoiler here). A car hits a truck. The movie then cuts IMMEDIATELY to the next shot, leaving us to wonder if parts flew off, if a screeching sound was heard, if the fender crumpled, etc. Herr Direktor may think this is cute, or (wait for it!)ARTSY. I think it's amazingly annoying. 3. No gadgets. You know, it didn't need any. The movie did just fine without them. 4. Us Vs Them. There is a tendency in this movie to pit the British against their closest allies, the US. This happened several times, with MI-6 personnel demonizing the US basically (along with China and Russia) as being "oil hogs". While the US may certainly use more than it's "share" of oil, I question the motivation for the writer (and my buddy the Director) to make such a stink about it. This demonizing trend is further shown with the CIA characters showing, well, a lack of morals and desire to operate within the law. While I know that this tune has been played before, I was surprised to see it hauled out to be harped on by a series as normally well thought of as a Bond movie. 5. (SPOILER AGAIN) Next time you all stage a fight, where one guy's reaching for a gun, could you all please give us enough time to figure out WHO it is reaching for that gun? I mean, it was just silly. Both guys were wearing dark suits. Both are Caucasian. Don't think we're stupid, but give us at least a little chance to catch a clue here.
Shaken not stirred
rogerdarlington2 November 2008
Following up the outstanding success of "Casino Royale" was always going to be a really tough mission and "Quantum Of Solace" - written as an immediate sequel to the earlier movie - is, while hugely entertaining, only a partial success.

The greatest plus is again Daniel Craig who has quickly made the 007 role his own. Here he is an agent full of controlled anger of the loss of his love Vesper Lynd who is visibly bloodied by the brutal, bone-crunching encounters that he faces and fights. We have a gorgeous Bond girl in the Ukrainian Olga Kurylenko (playing the Bolivian-Russian Camille) who - in a clever referencing of many of the Fleming novels - is a beautiful woman with a physical flaw (think of Honeychile Rider's broken nose). We have lots and lots of running and chases in every type of vehicle - whether car, boat or (pre-war) aircraft - and simply frenetic editing. It's all so fast and so furious, but actually too fast and too furious. Indeed the last two Bond films have so obviously been massively influenced by the box office takings of the Bourne trilogy.

What we don't have is a compelling narrative - the plot is really confused at times - or any of the humour or the gadgets that were so much a part of films earlier in the 45 year old franchise. For the second consecutive time, the main villain is a Frenchman (1066 and all that) but Mattieu Amalric as Dominic Greene is not so scary and we only glimpse the real Mr Big right at the end of the movie. Effectively there's no sex: Bond sleeps with one woman but we don't see them in bed and then she comes to a sticky end - which counterpoints the classic murder scene in "Goldfinger" - in terms which suggest that in future she should be known as Oil Fields. Even the music is a letdown: no use of the famous Monty Norman theme until the end and a terrible opening song.

In short: By the end of this 22nd outing, I was shaken but not stirred.
5/10
A rushed out follow up.
RatedVforVinny18 January 2019
Following the sensational success of 'Casino Royale', reports of a rushed-out sequel turned out to be well founded. it just goes to show there is such a fine line of getting something dead right, or completely wrong! The plot is as muddled as the convoluted title and Daniel Craig, has simply mutated into a grunting incarnation of his previous 007 persona. saying that, the action is pretty solid and starts with a rather exhilarating car chase. Like everyone else though, i gave up trying to follow the overly complex plot and just tried to enjoy the ride. Although 'Q.O.S' is the shortest bond movie in history, I soon found myself waiting for the unsatisfying climax. One of the weakest bonds and not helped by the all time lamest adversary.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not the James Bond we knew and loved.
tupolev-24 December 2008
I was very disappointed with Quantum of Solace. It is dark, violent and completely lacking in humour. Daniel Craig's Bond is a wooden and unpleasant character who spends most of his time killing almost everyone in sight. We all know he has a licence to kill but in this film he is just a mass murderer. When he is not killing people he is expressionless, with nostrils flared, trying to look cool and sexy. The Bond girls are completely forgettable.

The action scenes are filmed in extreme close-up and change about every two seconds. This makes viewing them an unenjoyable experience, similar to watching a strobe light – epileptics be warned!

The storyline is unbelievable and confusing. The villains' objectives are never really made clear so I'm assuming that who they are and what they are plotting will be explained in a sequel. There is no sparkle this film, no gadgets and no Bond wisecracks.

If you enjoyed the formula of previous James Bond films featuring Connery, Moore and Dalton don't expect anything like that from this movie.
5/10
Not The Bond we Knew and Loved
bigdave1129 April 2009
I found this very disappointing. The Bond franchise was hugely successful because it encapsulated action, humour, escapism and memorable villains. This movie certainly has plenty of fast paced action sequences, but where are the quips and most importantly the 'supervillain'?

The James Bond we knew and loved saved the world from eccentric madmen armed with nuclear warheads holed up in underground lairs beneath volcanoes - he didn't track down crooked businessmen trying to make a illegal profit out of water sales! He has gadgets and underwater cars which fire missiles. Remember 'Girls, Guns & Gadgets'?

I agree with many of comments left by other posters. Judy Dench is excellent as 'M' but Daniel Craig portrays Bond as a licensed thug without the wit or charm of his predecessors. By all means update the Franchise but stop turning the worlds best loved spy into just another thuggish action hero. Bring back everything that made James Bond movies special and unique.
1/10
Bond minus style and soul
a_josefsson1 November 2008
A very confusing Bondfilm. The editing is too Bourne like and not very effective. Forster's direction makes the film look rushed. The story is very weak and there is far too much action. This looks like just another action movie. I missed classic lines, style, wit and some TRUE Bond-moments. There is a lack of originality here, sadly.

However, all the people who hates Bondmovies should be happy with this, because as an action movie it is decent. But as a Bondmovie: Very disappointing.

Come back Pierce Brosnan - we forgive you :)

3/10
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Masterpiece
craigsut13 November 2008
I can understand how others have given this film a slating, it doesn't have the wider appeal that Casino Royale has. This film is for die hard bond fans, for those who love the Ian Flemming books. This film is exactly like the stories in the books - its the closest I have ever seen to the Bond in Flemmings books.

The action is incredible and of course there are similarities to Bourne but this film is all about Bond. Each character he meets is like a mirror reflecting back the many aspects of Bond to him. The plot is good, the acting is brilliant and the locations, cars, girls are absolutely spot on.

Daniel Craig is Ian Flemmings James Bond - End of. He is a brilliant Bond and I feel his performance in this film is better than his role in Casino Royale.

This film is about Bond feelings. I was gutted when Vesper died and after seeing this film I feel happy that her death has been avenged. There is a scene towards the end that reminds me of the shower scene in Casino Royale, whoever thought of adding that scene had a stroke of genius.

The end fighting scenes didn't go on for as long as I wanted them too but don't let that put you off because the whole film feels like an end fighting scene.

If you've lost a loved one in your life, you will absolutely love it. If you love the Bond that sadly has been created for the Bank Holiday/Commercial viewer, you'll hate it.

I was really impressed with the Director, the music is top class - using various harmonies of the Bond Theme, Well Done to all - it exceeded my expectations.
9/10
Fine thriller with brilliant Craig and Kurlenko
Stampsfightclub22 November 2008
James Bond (Craig) sets on a mission to find out who is responsible for the death of his love in the sequel to Casino Royale.

Daniel Craig (Layer) reprises his role as the British agent and has a more accomplished role than in his previous outing. The character was very quiet and subtle but here he is more open and upfront, not to mention more talkative. This is the finest point of the film as the character is developing and viewers get to see the darker side of the hero and as this is a predecessor to all other Bonds, it shapes the character in exactly the right way.

Kurylenko (Max Payne) is a fantastic Bond girl. She looks the part, worn down by her past and carrying her own agenda. She is dark, feisty and mysterious, a great combination and has some great on screen moments with Bond, just watch out for a great boat chase.

The plot is fantastic. Whereas Casino Royale set the tone for introducing Bond into the world, this 2008 sequel builds on the central character and gives viewers more of a story. Bond has a stronger aim in this sequel, to find out who is behind the tragedy of the last film.

Though Casino Royale had a strong plot, there was quite a bit of dwindling on certain points, such as the long and overdrawn card games.

Here everything is done quickly and in an exciting manor to, justifying the action genre. The determination behind Bond is excellent and really gets the action pumping. There is a beautiful score to further generate the adrenaline feeling.

Bond fans will be pleased with the action sequences as Casino Royale lacked in that area. Here we have cars, planes, boats and on foot chases all generating that action styled feeling that the Bond franchise does so well. However the early action sequences, specifically the opening car chase scene, is poorly directed. The fast montage does not do the car chase any justice. There are 1 second shots showing brief glimpses of vehicles and characters and is never effectively established. The feeling is there, but without a clear cut picture it is hard to get a proper view of the sequence.

The direction improves as the film dives deeper into its dark revenge driven plot. The plane sequence is excellent, and the most realistic plane chase in a Bond film.

Jack White's 'Another way to die' title song is a love it or hate it number, which has received heavy scrutiny.

This 25th Bond instalment is a fine action thriller with great acting and a finely scripted plot and Craig is on his way to becoming one of the best ever Bonds
1/10
absolute rubbish
info-135237 November 2008
Like most people on the planet you look forward to the new James Bond film, especially since Casino Royale brought a fresh new dimension to the old formula. However, not since Shrek 3 have I been so disappointed in a film! The title music was awful, my thought as I listened was "hope the film's better", It wasn't! An appallingly poor script which was thinner than Rizlas, too much fast camera action so that not only did I miss what was happening but my eyes were still jumping when it finished. This wasn't Bond it wasn't even a decent action movie. Where were the gadgets, Q, one line humour? The only decent part was at the beginning if you could manage to get your brain and eyes in super speed synchronisation.I believe at one point later I may have fallen asleep, so boring was the rest of the film. I really feel sorry for Daniel Craig who is being wheeled out to every available opportunity to give credibility to this turkey. R.I.P James Bond. Ian Fleming must be spinning in his grave!
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dizzyness
pambosk11 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace has a very very poor plot. But it has been made worse by the director. The opening car chase sequence could have been brilliant, but let down by hand held camera work, quick editing. The same applies to the fight sequence, totally in the face trying to see who is fighting who. The music came out of the Bourne films. Acting good........script and direction very poor.
5/10
Bond is slowly becoming just another modern spy movie (and there's a huge accent on JUST)
micz8124 November 2008
I think that there has to be a big red line between Bond films and Bourne films. I was simply delighted by strongly action-oriented and extremely well directed Bourne Ultimatum but it DOES NOT mean that Bond being a copy of that scheme will be a good solution too. I think - and as I see I'm not alone in this opinion - that Bond should be Bond, and Bourne should be Bourne. The same fact that so many people point out this similarity, should be a strong argument for Bond movies not to go this path. When I recall the success of the first after long break "new-wave" Bond films with Pierce Brosnan I see the same spirit as in the earlier Sean Conery flicks. But in the modern outfit. Now when I look at Daniel Craig's films I see only new outfit. Without the spirit. Bond is slowly becoming just another modern spy movie (and there's accent on JUST). There's no distance, no humour, no vodka-tini, no gadgets, no witty conversations with women younger than M, no echo-laughter of the evil character, no under-lake space stations, etc., etc. Even Kurylenko is not so Bondy as she should be.

I understand that Bond needed refresh after Brosnan era, but I think not so quickly and not so hard-way. And Eva Green in Casino Royale - who besides can play even a shovel and still look sexy - will not rescue the hole four movies with Daniel Craig (Yes - I believe the two next will be in the same manner)
4/10
You disappoint me Mr Bond
buddybickford20 December 2008
The title song was a dreary mess, so forgettable that I wager singer Alicia Keys couldn't even whistle it back.

I am one of the multitude of life long Bond fans and I will defend Bond films whenever possible, on this occasion it however is not possible. Firstly the car chase at the beginning must have been great but the audience were not allowed to view it as the Director must have bought a shaky-cam add on and decided to get his monies worth, also the action kept cutting from cut to cut so fast that by the time your eyes were used to a frame it was gone, when the scene ended you knew you had seen something but weren't sure what.

This was the same for all action sequences. Also (and maybe a tecky out there can explain this) the action scenes seemed to be filmed on less frames per second than standard, so it appeared staggered, all this will be explained as a Directors way of inducing action, but it failed to do so, it just induced a headache.

I know all Bonds and all Bond films go through phases, some are moody and some are lighter, there is no one mood that we should expect, however I venture to say that there is a mood that we shouldn't expect, that mood being depressing. The film's mood is considerably depressing throughout, with no one liners, no tongue in cheek and no cheeky banter. Any Director who sees their own ambition superior to that of the Bond Genre should step aside, if they want to make an overly dark Bond in some draining selfish ambition to be remembered as creating a 'different Bond', then choose another film. Anyone can make a film with one theme, it's the magic of Bonds gone by that could combine drama, action, excitement, sadness and fun that will be remembered.

One of the great things about Bonds is that anything is possible Bond can go into outer space survive incredible leaps etc, so as audiences we can be expected to believe him in any situation. However I found my support waining with his plan to rescue his femme Fatale who was being held in an open speed boat by 7 guards all with Sub machine guns, and the boat itself was surrounded by more boats with more guards with sub machine guns, so Bond Kamakazi style rams his boat into the boat on a suicide mission, at one point he is being chased by the pursuing boats who are about one metre behind him showering him with a storm of bullets making it inconceivable that he and the girl didn't get killed instantly, the scene resembles something from Naked Gun I actually LOL I imagined Leslie Neilson in the pursuing boat.

Another irritating item was the fact that this was a sequel, I couldn't remember the details of Casino Royale and more importantly I didn't expect to have to. Why is this Bond a sequel no other Bonds have been! sure there may be elements that tie certain Bonds together, but each Bond movie should be standalone, what happens if someone walks in and rents a Quantum of Solace DVD does it have a prerequisite statement on the cover! or for those who QOS was there first Bond?! they must have been very disappointed (and confused).

Daniel Craig was great, I hope the next film gives him something he deserves. Plus he has now stopped that curious pouting.
5/10
Not Bond
JulianMHall2 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To Bond fans of a certain age and era - I'm 39 - a Bond movie has a familiar formula:

prelude intro with the infamous silhouettes Bond in M's office (banter with Moneypenny) Down to Q branch for gadgets - more banter M launches Bond like a 'fire and forget' missile at the enemy Cue lots of action, girls, witty quips and a finale.

This movie fails on almost every aspect except the action. Lots and lots of stunts strung together with a thin plot.

No humour. No gadgets. No Moneypenny. Not Bond.

In fact it would appear the directors were well aware they were making a movie that didn't look like Bond. When Fields is discovered naked covered in oil it shouts 'This is similar to what happened to Jill Masterson in Goldfinger - just in case you forgot this is a Bond movie, and we can understand why you would have.' On the subject of Fields I have only just read in the cast list her full name is Strawberry Fields. This is exactly the kind of pun the real Bond would pick up and run with, yet it isn't even mentioned in the movie.

Very disappointing, and yes I am one of those people who feels very strongly that Daniel Craig is badly miscast. He's a great actor [(I'm about to write a review of Defiance - he's brilliant!) but Bond he most definitely is not.

In a nutshell it's just A N Other action movie, which seems accidentally set in the Bond universe, and for that it gets 5.
1/10
This is no bond movie
yoda-1345 January 2009
Watched a screener of this ..... what is it .... it is definitely not a movie. A graduation piece of a student that failed the film academy maybe.

The only thing bond about this movie is that the studio claims it is a Bond movie. There is a character called Bond in the movie but that is not the Bond we know. He is not funny, has no gadgets, does not use the Bond quotes. Also the acting is bad. There is actually no acting it is just a collection of action scenes. The camera work is also a very bad copy of the Jason Bourne films. It is shot without any stabilization. It should give a dramatic effect but instead it just blurs the picture.

Never change a winning team, if it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind. The makers wanted to do something fresh. But they ripped the soul of Bond out of this movie. It is very, very bad. So bad I can not even tell you what the movie is about. There is no story line. Characters are not developed. And all at a sudden they ran out of money so that's the end of the movie.

Don't spent any money on this film. And save your self the time and frustration.
3/10
Quantum of Solace is one of the biggest disappointments of the respective decade, holding a titanic drop in quality compared to its predecessor.
msbreviews27 September 2021
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free thoughts, please follow my blog to read my full review :)

"Quantum of Solace is one of the biggest disappointments of the respective decade, holding a titanic drop in quality compared to its predecessor. Daniel Craig's dedicated performance isn't enough to save an over-violent James Bond flick, packed with terribly handled action sequences - shaky cam and quick cuts may be the worst technical combo in cinema - and an uninspiring, utterly boring narrative. Both the villain and the new Bond girls return to being easily forgettable cliches. Despite boasting the shortest runtime of the entire franchise, I couldn't wait for this unexpectedly poor sequel to reach its underwhelming ending. A stain that the next installment would fortunately clean..."

Rating: D.
4/10
James Bond is Rambo
ppilf2 December 2008
Daniel Craig is fantastic, but this movie is a big disappointment. It's a string of up-close, shaky-camera action sequences threaded into a fleeting meaningless bad movie. Lacks story development, character development, depth, suspense, intrigue, suave spy drama, etc… etc. There's nothing wrong with great action, but a great story, screenplay, and dramatic acting are required for a great movie.

The cast is fine, and the actor Daniel Craig has the potential to be the best Bond ever. Even more, he has the potential to elevate a James Bond film to the ranks of a classic movie. Broccoli's finally come upon another great Bond actor (Sean Connery was the first), now she just needs a quality team of professionals to write, direct, and film Bond movies.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
awful editing
Sergio_Ivan_19851 April 2009
Misguided, horrible editing, clueless direction; Marc Foster was an awful choice for this film. He clearly didn't have a clue how to do Bond so he went full Bourne on us, trying to play it safe.

Except the Opera Sequence, that was clearly Foster, I think, but, really, what the hell was that? I demand to know, I know it was by far the worst part of the film, pretentious, confusing, unnecessary, and, above all, absurd.

It's a shame really, since this reboot started so well with the great, fun, Casino Royale... let's hope Craig's third outing as Bond can pull the franchise up from this embarrassing disaster, let's hope the producers understand Bond does not need to be Bourne, neither it can.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
BRILLIANT Quantum of Solace.
Psalm5214 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The so-called critic's chorus of middle-aged, testosterone-deficient, nattering nabobs of negativism (i.e.- Boston Globe's Wesley Morris, Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert, filmcritic.com's Bill Gibron, Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan, New York Times' A.O. Scott, et al) have collectively missed the exhilarating ride Quantum delivers!!! They whine about the good old days when Connery played 007. It's a new millennium guys!!! Come out of the trenches!!! If Quantum had been a carbon copy of Casino Royale then these nattering nabobs would complain it wasn't more like what director Forster delivers: a edge of your seat, action-packed, plausible espionage drama of betrayal, retribution, and justice!!! See Quantum for yourselves and enjoy the ride. I did and I just may go back :) !!!

P.S. The opening title sequence and song are NOT a disappointment. My one very minor quibble is the scene w/ Ms. Fields paying homage to Goldfinger could have been more of a revelation or surprise to the audience.
4/10
The old Bond is long gone
Masch0245 November 2008
I'm a big fan of Casino Royale, but this movie was a huge disappointment. The only gadget he had was a camera cellphone. Everyone has a camera cellphone... The opening scene was hard to follow and almost made me seasick :S I normally like it when they shoot scenes like that, the Bourne-trilogy is amazingly shot in my opinion, but here I couldn't see who was chasing whom. There's absolutely no humor in this movie, one joke, that was all, and there's no romance either. I'm not sure rape belongs in a Bond-movie. If it wasn't a Bond-movie I would have said that it's a good action movie, but it is a Bond-movie, and not a very good one.
19 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What the h*** is this Bond film even about?!
alex-caruso15 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yeah the previous Bond film didn't impress me that much to be very honest. In fact, this is probably the bottom 5 of my least favorite Bond films. It's something that you will notice throughout just about the whole movie, and what is it? The story, and the plot. I'm a huge James Bond fan, and every other James Bond film I have ever watched has always had a clear plot, and an on going story line that I could perfectly understand. To say the least, this has got to be the first Bond film that doesn't have that. When I first saw this Bond in the theaters a few years ago in 2008, I didn't know what the hell was going on in the story NOT even half way through the film. The only thing that kept my head in the movie were these random little thrilling moments and these out of nowhere action scenes. It's like the movie was telling me, ''okay person watching this movie, I know this Bond film has no clear story about what is going on, but we will just throw in some random action scenes to make sure it's not losing your attention!'' I mean it's good that the movie had plenty-enough action scenes, that is essential to every James Bond film. It goes without saying though, that in order to have these actions scenes, it has to go along with the story, and since there was NO clear story to me, I didn't understand what was going on with all the Bond-action stuff. I mean let me recap on a few random moments, 1. Bond gets picked up by the Bond girl off a street in Haiti in some old rusty car, they are talking when all of a sudden, she pulls a gun on Bond and almost blows his head off. Bond jumps out of the car and she speeds off. 2. Bond knocks out a guy on a dirt bike who was tailing the car Bond was in with the Bond girl AFTER he jumps out of it. Like, what the hell? 3. The movie is going forward when Bond suddenly fights that guy in the rundown motel room in Haiti. After he kills the thug in the motel room, he picks up some brief case, and that's were the randomness of the movie begins. 4. Bond is talking to Felix (from the previous Bond film) in a bar. They are talking about something so fast you won't be able to understand what it is unless you watch it over and over again a couple times. All of a sudden, a SWAT team raids the bar and Bond flees. Like, what???!!! WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT?! And it's also revealed that Bond is trying to save Bolivia from some water drought from the bad guy. Like are you kidding me? So much for world domination. I thought this was James Bond saves the world, NOT James Bond saves the environment. Either way, this has got to be one of the most random Bond film I have ever seen. Skyfall has just come out, and I'm hoping that will be a huge bounce back from this one, because this one provided no clear plot or story on what the HELL was going on!
1/10
We want more than that
edtorelli5 November 2008
The James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson clearly don't know what to do with the character after Cassino Royale. Yeah, they re-invented the franchise in C.R., but they didn't have a plan for the 007 after that. Quantum of Solace is boring – and this obtuse Bond played by this bodyguard, Daniel Craig, is just an uninspired imitation of Jason Bourne. And he looks too old for the job, by the way. Once the producers decided to ignore the character's past and formula and reboot the series, they have the obligation of launch more Cassino Royales in the future – not dumb movies like Quantum of Solace (a substandard production that is neither a classical Bond film nor another Cassino Royale). We want more than that.
28 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not very good.
ennes0128 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a long time fan of the Bond movies, I was quite disappointed with this film. The motivation in this movie shifts from Queen and Country to revenge, which is fine except for the fact that Bond's actions really have nothing to do with revenge. The main villain, Dominic Greene, doesn't really have any connection to Vesper's death besides the fact that he is a member of the same large, allegedly evil organization.

The story is paper thin, traditionally the main villain has some evil plot to take over or gain power over the civilized world. The evil plot in this movie is that Mr. Greene wants to be the primary utility company in a 3rd world country. I understand that the new Bond series is going for a more realistic feel but they really need to up the ante on the plot, this is the most underwhelming storyline I have ever seen in a Bond film.

The "Bond" humor was non-existent, Bond was at least witty and charming in the last film, he was just a blank slate in this one. The action was choppy, poorly paced, and shot at odd camera angles. The characters personalities and actions didn't seem to fit the ongoing events, M is the best example of this.

Overall, it was a pretty poor movie in my opinion. I really enjoyed Casino Royale and thought they had left the story in a position to grow into something great but feel they really dropped the ball with this one.
8/10
Bond has finally found his Quantum of Solace
akayz_people2 February 2009
Comparing Casino Royale, I feel that the rising and the falling of Bond in QOS reminds me of many in the superhero genre.

Not saying that it fails, because this movie is filled with win, such quality of cinematography (British at its best) This dark depressing Bond has a far deeper tone to it than any other bond, and it should be given credit, people may say its boring, but thats because they watch too much Transformers and Iron Man...

Quantum of Solace has put Bond back on the map when people said Bourne through Bond out the window. The impulsive acts of Bond has given a new edge to his character, and with such a great actor portraying it, I think it opens doors for future bonds and it will indeed be seducing more people, getting them into Bond.

The movie is a future classic, and it has a level of class than so many of the past Bonds failed to succeed.

Moreover, the fantastic soundtrack adds to the effect, great job to David Arnold.

All in all the movie greatly deserves a cool

8/10
8/10
Perhaps the Most Stylistically Unique of the Bonds Pictures
jzappa25 November 2008
One criticism I've heard from critics regards the opening car chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, that it's so hurriedly cut and accused of obvious but perplexing CGI, that for the most part we're looking at blurred images leaping off each other, intercut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching monster trucks. I was surprised to find I did not agree with this common critique. My only problem was that hundreds of rounds of machine gun spatter as close as they are to Bond's very back windshield seem to just disappear into thin air, but of course Bond fires a single final shot that not only successfully wounds one of his dispatchers but sends the pursuing car over the cliff to crash and burn. But hey, when has an action hero ever been killed by machine gun fire, regardless of the seemingly endless ammunition hailed upon him?

One of the more annoyingly titled Bond efforts, the movie's titular Quantum organization's objectives and values are entirely unknown, but they favor the shadows. All they seem to do is hire mercenaries to fulfill hits to control being implicated in them, and the lead villain here schemes for his branch-off company to manipulate Bolivia's water supply, which I assume is part of a larger plot to be revealed in the 23rd film.

This direct sequel to Casino Royale is directed by perhaps the most stylistically unique filmmaker to be at the helm of the uber-commercial 007 franchise, Marc Forster. There is actually a bit of the director reflected in the finished product this time. As, Amalric wanted to wear make-up for his role as the ruthless lead villain, but Forster made clear that he wanted Greene not to look bizarre, but to appear as the charming and attractive young actor always does to symbolize the veiled evils of society. To the die hard Bond fan, this could go two ways: A plus or a serious minus. The reason the first 21 Bond films were far removed from personal artistic control was because there are olden customs indoctrinated into the cinematic Bond tradition which must not be compromised. Quantum of Solace compromises them for the first time since Dr. No. Bond does not sleep with Bond girl Olga Kurylenko. This I admire. She is not a bimbo but a strong female character on her own vendetta. Maybe the pattern of chauvinism in these movies is finally tapering off with Craig's arrival.

Daniel Craig is a strong actor, especially in testosterone-leaning movies. So, he continues to be a good Bond, but this second outing for him marks him as the least conversational Bond in almost 50 years. M has more dialogue than 007, who has become a normal schmuck who asks for normal drinks. Greene is not a cartoon villain in the least, in fact quite a topical one. Also no Moneypenny.

I understand the purists, because the recent series reboot is growing further removed from the spirit we've been used to, one which has not so much been lost but has been built upon since 1962. It feels like Brosnan's been gone a lot longer than he has. But here's the thing: That's OK. Brosnan was the closest we got to Sean Connery since Sean Connery, and it was a great seven years. But since when does the strict maintenance of all the proper traditional elements serve the purpose of creativity? Perhaps the 23rd and 24th Bonds will continue in an even fresher direction.

However, I did have a problem with the movie's disregard for tradition. We're beginning to lose the dry humor and snooty British suavity. Those two things are vitally important to the James Bond movie. Bond is becoming Bourne, which is to say he's becoming more and more American all the time. Our franchises must not absorb the cultural diversity and personality in its universal trends, which in this case is the robotic muscleman on a vendetta. I'll tell you who I liked better than Bond: CIA go-between Felix Leiter, played by the wonderful Jeffrey Wright, whose rise to stardom seems to be going slowly but it's definitely a sure thing. He gives Felix, who for years has been a stick figure, an individualism hiding under his stoic shell which eavesdrops in scenes of CIA plotting, rather than merely listening.

I am also a fan of the, so far, underrated opening title sequence, in which brilliant songwriter-bandleader Jack White and the quite talented Alicia Keys perform the oft- disparaged theme song which, with its clear focus on recording studio production, mixed acoustic and electric instrumentation, vocal-centric aesthetic and signature White Stripes rhythmic feel, does not stray far from good spy film music in the least, as has been said by many critics.

My verdict is that Bond 22 is not one of the lesser Bond pictures, yet the series has a long way to go before the filmmakers will feel comfortable enough to truly take a unique stylistic turn, for here, we just have another unforgettable but visually juicy action entertainment.
9/10
Amazingly good
trpnallday9 February 2009
I was introduced to the Bond series through the films featuring Pierce Brosnan, which while they had their silly moments, were much more serious than the Bond movies before them. Maybe this has biased me or maybe I would always feel this way, but I really like the serious approach that the new Bond films (now starring Daniel Craig) take.

I shied away from seeing this new film for quite a while after hearing horrible things about the story, pacing, editing etcetera but I have to say that I found it incredibly entertaining.

There was a lot of action but the short bits of talk and whatnot in between were well used for maximum effect which I felt helped greatly to build the emotional tension and show how Bond's character is growing-up (albeit slowly). The action scenes also felt a little more frenetic than in Casino Royale but they were by no means unwatchable as some have suggested. In fact I liked every scene until the one with the explosions in the desert. It was cool and entertaining though I relived being scared as a child during the Backdraft attraction at Universal Studios! The only detractors I can think of is 1) that the explosion scene was a little overboard. At some point the characters should have just given up and rushed out of the building rather than stubbornly duke it out 'til the building was falling down around them!! 2) The villain(s) were really bland but then I guess that goes with the realism of the story.
3/10
I walked out
ntvnyr3020 November 2008
I was initially wary about Daniel Craig as Bond, but after having seen "Casino Royale", I was immediately convinced that he was outstanding in the role, and couldn't wait for this film to be released. I can count on probably 2 fingers the number of times I walked out on a film. This was an extreme disappointment following such a sublime achievement in "Casino Royale." I know many people have compared this to the "Bourne" films--none of which I have seen incidentally. I just cannot see the very liberal Matt Damon as a kick-ass super-spy.

From what I understand about the "Bourne" films, the action is quick and heart-pounding. You can see they attempted to mimic the same type of action, and they succeeded. However I couldn't tell what the hell was going on in this film! The action was so quick and the close-ups so tight that they action was completely lost and impossible to follow. I'm not sure but I think the villain was global warming or something like that...

I have read some reviews prior to seeing this and was surprised that the producers didn't capitalize on the roaring success of CR. The opening song was horrendous. The producers jettisoned all the things we love about Bond films: the gun-barrel sequence, Bond asking for a martini "shaken but not stirred", Q, Moneypenny and even a memorable song (I understand full well that neither Q or Moneypenny was in the last film).

I note in closing that I had an appointment which hastened my exit from this insufferable film. I am certain that the producers will awake from this Bourne-induced nightmare and return Bond to some semblance of what he once was.
2/10
Terrible, Dull, and NOT BOND
danavenell20 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
People say the Craig Bonds are more realistic... well to a point, as if that's a good thing anyway. But this 'realistic'Bond still has plenty of stupid scenes - they fall from a plane onto hard rocks with a parachute between them that barely opens at the last second, we see them hit the ground hard... then they are both fine. Eh? Bond needs to save the girl so he jumps his motorbike onto a boat, then another boat then uses that boat to rescue her in an unclear manner. Why not just take a nearer boat? The villain? Some slimy little Roman Polanski type? Who cares? And his plan sucks. And we don't see him die but apparently he drank the oil that Bond gave him because he was thirsty in the desert... would anyone do that? It's OIL.

Bond rarely seems in danger. Just grumpy.

He gets to bed a woman, but she just seems to be suddenly up for it. Usually he charms them, even if his charm is cheesy. Not this time, we just see her wake up with dull grumpy big ears.

So what is good about it please? He's not a 'likable killer'. He kills people, but it's perfunctory. He's not at all charming. Cheesy jokes have been removed, but replaced with just dull, random pointless dialogue instead. There are no awesome set-piece stunts or action scenes, not one. There are some very average ones though. No gadgets at all, I mean who liked Bond's gadgets anyway, eh? Or the theme music? Get rid of that nonsense... (sarcasm btw) And the ending is just bleh. Sure, he's got some 'solace', it means little to him, it actually is a bit meaningful compared to the rest of the film. But its still a boring ending to a dull as hell movie.

Oh I just remembered one redeeming feature - some of the cinematography and colours were nice. Woo, I suppose it gets the one star for that.
7/10
More like Casino Royale 1.5, but still good fun
Jack_Acid25 January 2009
I was surprised to see so much negative reaction to this film after the highly well-received Casino Royale. It seemed like Craig was quickly embraced by the Bond community, so how bad could it be? For the record, I was never a huge Brosnan fan.

Granted, QoS is not the same caliber as Casino Royale, but that's mostly because it plays out like an extended cut of CR. This Bond offers plenty of action and an ice cold Bond in Craig, but it is not as much of a stand alone film.

If you're looking for an ultra traditional Bond, or one that stands entirely on its own merit, you may be disappointed. The script does have issues, but it never seemed to drag it down for me.

Personally, I left the theater feeling quite satisfied.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This is the best product ever made
youAreCrazyDude26 November 2008
This is absolutely best product ever made. But I like movies and films, that's why I rate this at 2. In addition, this product is made by either people with hyperactivity disorder or made for such people: the entire product is made up of sequences that last only fraction of a second: the action lasts only fraction of a second then the screen shows some other action unrelated to previous action. Thus, because the entire product is made from cuts of action that last only fraction of a second, the entire product is very hard to watch. For me, it caused dizziness and head spins. But hyperactive kids will probably find it amazing to watch: it is like watching those screen savers - Windows' Mystify, StarField, and other flying in your face things that are hard to watch. But again, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Review of the film
kristhomas200231 October 2008
Don't be shocked about the low score, I will explain.

The start opens with a great car chase as you would expect from a Bond film. But that's were it lost us. The cinema was packed with confused faces at the intro theme music and starting credits, it just wasn't Bond.

Later in the film, while wondering why you paid £7.50 to get in, your thrown into a scene with great stunts, but... you cant see it. Even though there are 16+ cameras filming, they are flying all over the place so much its hard for your eyes to focus on what's happening, and find yourself looking away.

The storyline was weak, and you could tell this from the acting of Daniel Craig and Judi Dench. The storyline was so bad you could tell they struggled to hold it together. But full credit to them, without them it would have fallen apart.

If you loved Casino Royale don't go and see this film, it will shatter your bond film dreams.

Even the 'bad' guy wasn't great... all he did was do wide eyed looks at the camera.

All in all this was the worst Bond film for a long time, and I think its partly to blame on the storyline and direction of the film. To think this film was directed by the same person who made the borne movies you will see why this film was an obvious stunt to show how much he didn't want to create something better.

I love Bond films and I hope this isn't the death nail for such a great character.
10/10
Absolutely Bond.
smorris2007 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, this is my first review so take it easy on me, there may be spoilers ahead.

Quantum of Solace begins as all Bond films should, with a fast paced action sequence, it is a (necessary) shame the Aston gets so badly damaged as it is a beautiful car but the action sequence is fantastic, fast paced and thrilling. It also ends with a real twist which links this to Casino Royale and sets the scene for the rest of the film to play out in. I have read other comments about the visible CGI, but to be honest, I couldn't see it and have to say I was quite out of breath by the time Bond stopped his car. I missed the usual opening of the bond eye.

Overall the story is fast paced but makes sense, you can see the logic to Bonds actions. There are some quirky one liners and although you can see that this film borrows from Bourne, it is most definitely a Bond film. All the ingredients (except Q and money-penny) are there. There are fantastic locations, beautiful women, lots of violence and killing, plot twists, double agents, misdirection and a great end sequence in a remote base... what more could you want!! (ok, perhaps some cool gadgets would be nice)

Judi Dench is fantastic as always and you can really feel the internal struggle as she tries to support and help Bond but doesn't quite understand why he is going so rouge. I feel that if Bond had taken 10 minutes out to explain things M would have been far more supportive, but as criticisms go, this is minor. The rest of the supporting cast are also great, big shout out to "Fields" and Mathieu Amalric who both stood out and of course there is Daniel Craig, who really seems to have settled into the role and I think is one of the best bonds ever!! Again, other reviews have criticised his coldness but I think he is still a bit of a "blunt instrument" and s still learning. I think much of the "cold" comments relate to the way Bond disposed of a certain "friend". But in the situation, he really had no choice and the coldness of his actions are balanced by the warmth of his cradling his friend as he dies. I think Bond id very Human. The film also deals with the internal struggle within Bond, he never sleeps, drinks a lot and is looking for closure from what happened to Vesper in the last film. I think he gets it and in a way, the actions and drive of Olga Kurylenko allows bond his own closure. We will see in the next film a much more balanced character who is at ease with who he is.

The villain, Mr Greene, is scary in so much as he is normal and completely based in reality. I could totally get the fact that in the future water is going to be an extremely valuable commodity and whoever controls it will have the power. The Quantum organisation (consider SPECTRE rebooted) is using its brains and vast network to ensure that its people will have power in the future.

Anyway, as a bond film and an action film, I loved it. *****
5/10
Well its no Royale
sammyocarr31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond, Quantum OF Solace.

The film starts with an action packed car chase, capturing the interest of the audience instantly, and i was certainly hooked. However, as the film tortuously unfolded, the plot seemed weak, and empty.

Classic Bond fans will be complaining about the lack of lasers, megalomaniac bad guys, and convenient gadgets. I, however, was never a big fan of this element to Bond, and so was delighted when Casino Royale was released, and felt it a breath of fresh air. This film though, fails to live up to the high standard that it set, and therefore leaves me disappointed. Hot 'Bond girl'(Olga Kurylenko), yet even she doesn't have the character depth that was needed to give this story some meat.

Slowly gadgets are being introduced, a high tech glass wall screen, a face mapping phone etc, building up for the return of Q possibly. This film was riddled with product placements, Virgin Airlines was the most obvious one, with a bright ad behind Bond. Ford and Ford owned cars (Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin) were all visible in any car scene, and Sony seemed to dominate the technology side of things, with all phones, laptops and TV's being of Sony origin. For me it was a little too obvious and made me cringe sometimes.

Fast, constant action, quality acting and actors, and raw fighting were the positives in this film. Lack of story, character depth and originality were the negatives.

In short, I liked it as its not the usual Bond formula, but it can't compare to Casino Royale, and I'm not the first to point out its very similar to Bourne, and nobody can compare to Bourne.
2/10
00 Crap
phantom-204 October 2019
This entry into the franchise easily makes my list as the worsts James Bond film ever! Nothing here works as a Bond film. It is dark, depressing, humorless and has no sense of fun. Even more serious 007 films like "Dr No" and "From Russia With Love" had a sense of fun and adventure and that is all missing here! Even weaker entries like "A View To A Kill" had a likeable, fun quality. Good luck finding it in this celluloid mess! And that weasel on speed editing!!!!!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Bad, Just Not Bond
markimdb-628 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been a Bond fan for a long time. I don't mind the occasional "re-interpretations" of Bond and enjoyed Casino Royale (although it did need the "Bond, James Bond" quote and music at the end to keep me happy).

The problem with Quantum of Solace is not that its a bad film. Its actually a quite good thriller, although I could do without Marc Foster's blurring camera-work during the action scenes, that moves along quickly and which looks like an expensive, slick Hollywood movie is expected to.

No, my problem with Quantum of Solace is that its like those movie adaptations of popular novels. You know the ones - where the director/writer/producer decide to "interpret" the novel and so what you end up with is a familiar title, character names and not much else that got you into the cinema in the first place.

So, like a lot of people, I'm asking where are the elements that make this a Bond film? Why have the producers almost completely removed the traditional Bond music? Why does the "gunbarrel" opening now take place right at the end? Why is there virtually no humour? (I don't need Roger Moore, but an occasional one-liner wouldn't hurt). Why is there no Q? (I don't need an invisible car, but one gadget would be nice) Of even more concern is an excessive ugliness of tone in the film. Its only brief, but there is a closeup of a gunshot wound, that seems completely gratuitous, as does the photo of a mutilated head. Likewise the attempted rape scene at the end is not what I expect in Bond.

Daniel Craig is a fine Bond and if the writers can have him looking a little less like the victim of a car crash for most of the movie and give him a clever quip now and then, I think he will rank with Brosnan and Connery.

Like the dedicated fan I am, I'll go along to the next Bond in a couple of years - but Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, it better be Bond I'm going to see and not some well made clone.
7/10
The wheel keeps turning
tomimt8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A car chase! A shoot out! A running chase! A boat chase! A chase with airplanes! And all kinds of fighting in between.

Quantum of Solace is edge seating action from the opening scene to, well almost, the end. The story boots up from where Casino Royale left and Bonds is soon in the tail of an unknown, yet extremely powerful organization, that has tied its tentacles around both political and business world. Main villain of the tale is Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who is seemingly a well meaning environmentalist, but in the shadows he has far more sinister ideas. Though he's not the head man of the organization, that is something we will see in the third Craig Bond, as QoS is clearly a middle part of a far more bigger tale that was spawned in "Casino Royale".

Despite Bond is always on the move, rescuing damsels, and pretty much killing before asking the questions, a thing that is noted even in the story by the M, and getting to his goal with a pinch of pure luck, he is evolving during the movie. A bit by bit, despite how small, he is gaining those traits people know him of. The soundtrack echoes familiar notes, while the rugged and arrogant Bond is slowly turning into more suave agent. It isn't hard to depict, that in the third Craig vessel Bond will be almost like people know him, but still not quite. Change is the major theme of the story.

QoS wasn't as good as Casino Royale was. But it isn't a bad movie either, it just seems to suffer from the middle part of the story syndrome, in which it thinks, that things, that happened in the previous Bond film, Casino Royale, are familiar to the viewers, as if you aren't, you don't get all the stuff that goes on. And the ending isn't quite as satisfying as it could be, as it clearly indicates a place, where the last part will begin.

But thankfully enough, the movie is entertaining. And that is the main reason to watch a Bond film.
3/10
Where's the fun?
zarrod13 June 2009
One of the most thrilling trailers of the year had me pumped to see James Bond's 22nd official adventure, Quantum of Solace. It showcased brief shots of spectacular stunt sequences and beautifully expansive cinematography that was reminiscent of Casino Royale (2006), with its wide shots that clearly reveal the geography of a set piece or a scene. Still, the reinvented James Bond's first film was a little disappointing. It was not a bad movie but it didn't feel like a Bond picture because some of OO7's charm and wit were missing, replaced with a level of emotion never before shown by the unflappable MI6 agent. Daniel Craig and the action scenes were fine, but the classic Bond theme was omitted from the main score, and missing with it was Bond's smooth and nonchalant, yet gentlemanly, manner that made him unique among run and gun movie characters. However, original Bond musician Monty Norman's familiar composition over the end credits of Casino Royale instilled hope that James Bond would return. After all, this was supposed to be the beginning of the man's career on her majesty's secret service. Maybe he was still getting used to the role. Maybe he would come back as the Bond we knew and (usually) loved for over 45 years. Then again… maybe not. Quantum of Solace begins very shortly after Casino Royale left off with what could have been an exhilarating car chase set on a treacherous mountain road. Right away, though, there is an incomplete feel to the action. The director and editor have cut the action scenes extremely quickly so that the teasing glimpses we got in the trailer were basically the equivalent of the finished film. Some really epic shots are on the screen for barely half a second before cutting away, giving the scene a real-time feel, but missing too much of the action. Perhaps it is just morbid curiosity on my part but I want to see the car that drives off the road finish its plunge and roll to a stop as a mangled heap of metal giblets. It seems like a waste of all the effort the film crew put into making each shot. I want to get a better sense of what is going on than how quickly it is happening. Another problem with the action of this installment is that there is little to no buildup before an action scene. Things just happen suddenly, often with no warning at all. It startles the audience rather than building up the tension. Then, as quickly as it begins, the excitement is over. The car chase ends abruptly and the uninspiring title song, "Another Way To Die," begins. The plot, which is never a great concern in a Bond film, involves an evil member of "Quantum" who wants to steal water from the people of a parched desert. Bond begins investigating by killing several henchmen and blowing up some boats. Along the way the music is pretty lackluster and restrained. Subtlety has never been one of OO7's strong points and the music used to reflect that. Bond travels to several exotic locations and meets a couple of beautiful women, but with all the shooting going on there is barely any time for him to smile, let alone exercise his charisma. This movie lacks much of the fun and farce of previous Bond movies. Of course change is not necessarily a bad thing. Admittedly, after the absurdly over the top and gadget heavy Die Another Day (2002), it was a wise decision to take OO7 back to his roots. Neither of these reinventions is short of effort; both are fairly well made, solid action films. However, the movies, especially Quantum of Solace, are not so effective at capturing the feeling of delight the audience feels when Bond gets the girl, escapes from ridiculous death traps, outwits the villains, and makes sure they die in interesting ways, all while issuing cheesy one-liners buoyed up by slick tunes. The one "quantum of solace" I got from this picture is that some of the loose ends concerning the plot of Casino Royale were tied up and I can hope we are being set up for a more traditional OO7. Previous chapters of this saga have certainly missed the mark more than Quantum of Solace. In fact, imagining the time-honored Bond theme playing over the action and masking the dialogue almost makes this film feel at place in the longest running film series ever made.
6/10
Starts really bad, but the action is good the rest of the way
Joshumms30 October 2021
The first 10 minutes of this movie are awful, the car chase with 1 million cuts and the rooftop chase with 1 million cuts are just bad. The actions scenes get better for the rest of the movie but the story is pretty messy.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is not a real Bond movie............
mcdegg22 December 2008
I'm gonna make a little summary,to be easily understood by anyone: 1)Daniel Craig was just a little guy,and all of the sudden he's full of muscles....i think he used steroids,and i don't think James Bond should be on steroids.(check out ''road to perdition'',he was as skinny as a little girl) 2)This new Bond has no charm,no charisma,he's just a pile of muscle that never have a punchline to deliver. 3)Where are all the cool gadgets that James Bond always use???This new guy has a cell phone....woooow!!!!!! 4)This new Bond is a superhero,not a secret agent,that plane scene was just amusing.... 5)Bond is not suppose to be fighting all the time,i mean if it's necessary he could always use his fists,but sometimes his charm and charisma should do the trick....Ohhh i forgot...this new Bond doesn't have any... 6)Shouldn't Bond have a British accent???Ohh maybe this new Bond is so cool that he doesn't need to act at all.... 7)Even Pierce Brosnan was better than this guy....If Bond is about muscles and no talking,i say let's make Stallone or Swarzenneger the next Bond. 8)The new opening is really bad,as the song performed. 9)THEY CHANGED THE BOND THEME SONG!!!!!!!!WHYYYYYYYYY??????DOUCHEBAGS!!! Well,it makes me sick to see a movie like this,with no plot and a James Bond that is totally unbelievable....We had Connery and Moore....Now we got a ''wrestler'' that will never be even close to what a real James Bond should be.
4/10
Full Of Promise But Disappointing In The End
timdalton00723 November 2008
With the announced reboot of the Bond franchise with Casino Royale in 2006 and with Daniel Craig being announced in the role, nobody was sure that the reboot would be successful. Yet with its release in 2006 and with Craig having proved himself in the role of Bond, anticipation was high for its successor. Yet Quantum of Solace would prove unable to reach the bar set by Casino Royale.

The problems seem to stem for the cast but, thankfully, not from Daniel Craig as007. Craig proves that the Bond he portrayed in Casino Royale could survive into another film. Craig proves himself again and again between the action sequences and the (relativly small amount) of dramatic sequences as well. The real shame is that Craig doesn't seem to have the chance to really act in the way he did in Casino Royale.

Moving on from Craig, the rest of the main cast is questionable. Playing the role of Camille is relative newcomer Olga Kurylenko. The problem with using a relative newcomer is the fact that Kurylenko doesn't have much acting experience and it shows. Kurylenko lacks screen presence and chemistry with Craig or anyone else she happens to share the screen with at any given moment. It seems a shame because with a better actress, the role of Camille could have been much better.

It has been said that a Bond film can be judged from the strength of its villain. If that is the case then Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene sums up Quantum of Solace: full of promise but disappointing in the end. Mathieu Amalric is a good actor without a doubt but the role of Bond villain is not a role for him. Dominic Greene is amongst the series least threatening villains who, like Moonraker's Hugo Drax, tries to be the "silent but menacing" type and only succeeds in being a self parody. The one time that Greene gets into a fight with bond it turns into one of the series unintentionally funny moments (people in the theater I saw the film in were laughing I'll leave it at that).

The supporting cast thankfully is better, if extremely underused. Perhaps the best example of this is Gemma Arterton wonderfully done Strawberry Fields. I ask the filmmakers what is the point of introducing a character who in her introduction alone is more interesting that your female lead just to give her the least amount of screen time possible? Like Miranda Frost in Die Another Day, the "secondary" Bond girl should have been the primary one and vice versa. Much the same is true of the returning characters from Casino Roayle: Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and White (the wonderfully menacing Jesper Christensen) who all deserved far more screen time then they eventually got. Back to the question: why introduce them if you're not going to use them much? Judi Dench makes a welcomed return as M, who in her screen time builds on to the Bond-M relationship established so well in Casino Royale and thankfully there are plenty of those scenes. The real shame is that, outside of Dench's M, the supporting cast is underused massively.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that the film suffers from an action overload. While the action sequences of Casino Royale were stunning, the same can not be said of those of Quantum of Solace. The filmmakers apparently took the Bourne films as a model because this film copies many of the action sequences right down to the foot chases and even a knife fight that is so reminiscent of the Borune series it could be called a rip-off. The film does have a few original action sequences in the film including the boat chase and one of the series best airborne action sequences. It's a shame that while there are good action sequences surrounded by a whole series of not so good ones. The filmmakers have made the same mistake they did with Tomorrow Never Dies: letting the action override the plot.

One of the pluses of the film is David Arnold's score. Arnold adheres a little more closely to the traditional Bond score. After making the James Bond Theme non-existent in Casino Royale, Arnold allows it to slip in without it being intrusive. In fact Arnold with one moment in particular perfectly captures the feel of the earlier John Barry scores with the scene of Bond and Fields. Arnold uses Quantum of Solace to show off his ability to make a good Bond score. Unfortunately the main title theme "Another Way To Die" is amongst the series worst with some odd lyrics and an odd performance (the duet was a good idea if only the song had been better).

Perhaps it was the raised expectations, but Quantum of Solace seems lacking in many areas. It's mixed main cast and action overload are its biggest problems and while it has many pluses (a good performance from Craig, an underused supporting cast and a good score) the minuses of the film are very hard to overcome. As a Bond fan I hat to say it but I will: Quantum of Solace is full of promise but disappointing in the end.
10/10
Yes
bevo-1367814 June 2020
Fighting gambling drinking and banging chicks. Then beating the terrorists
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A little disappointing
valleyjohn31 October 2008
I first came across Daniel Craig in the brilliant BBC TV series - Our friends in the north - back in 1996 . It was obvious to anyone that Craig had the potential to go on to be a big star and what bigger role than to play Bond . Despite questions of "Craig who? from across the pond , he was a huge success in arguably the best Bond movie for 25 years in -Casino Royale , but the burning question was 'could the strangely named follow up - Quantum of Solace - live up to it's predecessor? Sadly, in my opinion , the answer is no.

Betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and M interrogate Mr White who reveals the organisation which blackmailed Vesper is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.

Forensic intelligence links an Mi6 traitor to a bank account in Haiti where a case of mistaken identity introduces Bond to the beautiful but feisty Camille , a woman who has her own vendetta. Camille leads Bond straight to Dominic Greene, a ruthless business man and major force within the mysterious organisation.

On a mission that leads him to Austria, Italy and South America, Bond discovers that Greene, conspiring to take total control of one of the world's most important natural resources, is forging a deal with the exiled General Medrano . Using his associates in the organisation, and manipulating his powerful contacts within the CIA and the British government, Greene promises to overthrow the existing regime in a Latin American country, giving the General control of the country in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of land.

In a minefield of treachery, murder and deceit, Bond allies with old friends in a battle to uncover the truth. As he gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, 007 must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even M, to unravel Greene's sinister plan and stop his organisation.

In my opinion there are five main ingredients you need to make a great Bond film. Great action , a good Bond , a gripping story ,a memorable bad guy and a rousing theme song. The problem with Quantum of Solace is , is that it falls short on the last three.

The action is exactly what you would expect . Brilliant car chases , plenty of punch ups and a this time a rebellious Bond has no qualms in Killing everyone and anyone who stand in his way . The problem is , great action scenes are not enough . The story is a bit wayward and Bond's enemies are just not interesting enough . You need to be able to hate the bad guys to feel part of the story , but i didn't. Also what were they thinking when they agreed to have that dreadful song by Jack White and Alicia Keys? They are both out of tune!!!

Don't get me wrong Quantum of Solace is not a bad movie , it's actually quite good, but i want my Bond movies to be great. Perhaps the bar was set too high with Casino Royale?

I also got the impression that director Marc Foster ( who incidentally made my film of the year so far in "the Kite Runner") was trying to make a film that looked like The Bourne Ultimatum . lots of quick , short , difficult to take, in fight scenes but this is no Bourne Ultimatum.

This isn't even Daniel Craig's best movie this year , that goes to the fantastic " Flashbacks of a Fool". To sum up , Quantum of Solace is a fairly good action movie that is hard to dislike but i expected so much more.

7 out of 10
4/10
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
ben-8121 November 2008
This film's predecessor was such a good re-invention of the franchise that I went to the cinema to see a Bond film for the first time since my childhood. It's a shame then that the re-engineering of 007 has now been taken many steps too far, so that I left the cinema wishing I'd waited for the DVD. Thanks to madly frenetic editing, it's difficult to know where the story is in this film. Bond jets around from place to place, staying for as long as is required to kill another handful of people in ever-more implausible ways. There is little ability to be thrilled at the amazing stunts, because everything happens so quickly that you haven't got time to process the mise en scene before it is taken away. Several key action sequences are also spliced between peripheral backgrounds, so you see a horse race / opera for a second, then it cuts back to an action scene, and back again... I could forgive the lack of humour, gadgets etc as they had been taken too far in previous incarnations of 007. However Bond himself should be present in the film; this time, Bond was absent and replaced with a dour killing machine. Sadly, given the success of "Casino Royale", I'd have to mark this as a failure to build on what went before.
10/10
Perfect in every way possible.
pinkliz411 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic

Review:

Not only is Quantum of Solace better than it's predecessor but also is one of the best of the decade. Expect great amounts of action, adventure and thrills as Craig gives Bond the full measurement of power and adrenaline thats needed for a successful follow up to the widely acclaimed Casino Royale.

The action is 100 times better than in the previous instalment and shows the gradual increase of fast and fierce brutality by master Bourne choreographer Dan Bradley. The sequences move fast, furiously and brilliantly. The action also positively shows that a director can keep this faithful as well as a spot on story on the top.

Daniel Craig enhances his Bond to great heights and gives him an even more gruelling and bloodier look than the previous film. Craig fully demonstrates he is Bond and that he's the best one for the job.

The cinematography layers the film up together and gives the film an ideal look as to where the film takes place.

The direction is perfect from Marc Forster (The Kite Runners) who vividly and imaginatively creates an action adventure for the most humble of Bourne fans. The shots are wide and various but equally match up to a classic Bond film.

Verdict:

A visually stylish classic that can proudly hold nods up against all the other Bond movies.
1/10
A pretty bad Bond
Fredolow14 November 2008
I must say I was very disappointed with this latest Bond outing. Casino Royale had raised the bar a bit but this sent it firmly plunging back to the bottom. The plot seemed to be all over the place, but this could in part have been down to the appalling direction of the action sequences - 'let's take the shot in as tight as possible and wave the camera around, that way we'll get a good sense of intensity!' Erm, no - people will just wonder what the hell's going on and start to feel sick. It was all, well, just a mess and it's a shame that, although they are undoubtedly trying to pull some of the success of the Bourne series into Bond, they're failing so miserably. Get a decent director at the helm and not someone who looks they they've just come straight from a music video.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's good to make changes, but this.....
ben_mister_s17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As an avid James Bond fan, I went to this movie yesterday with big expectations. I came out of the theater pretty disappointed. The trailer looked so promising but the movie wasn't able to impress me.

First reason: The story is LAME!!! Some freaky French guy who wants to take control of the water supply. Sounds like a typical Jean Claude Van Damme story.

Second reason: The Title Song is terrible.

Third reason: To many (weird) locations. Your mind is still at Austria, and Bond is already off to Bolivia via Italy. And speaking of Bolivia, A hotel in the middle of the desert as a location for the climax of the movie? Come on Mr. Forster, you can do better than that!!!

Fourth reason: Where is the Bond vibe? No Martini's, no famous introduction "The name's Bond, James Bond", no gadgets and not a lot of joking around.

Well, I can write 1 more page about how disappointing this movie is, but every movie has good parts in it. This one is no exception. - The action sequences are pretty good, The beginning of the movie has some wonderful action in it including a small twist in the story. - Also very nice eye candy. Olga Kurylenko was hot in Hit-man, in this movie she keeps it up. She is also good in playing mysterious characters. Gemma Arterton looks pretty cute in this movie too, too bad she doesn't have a really big role in the movie. - Judi Dench: This woman plays an excellent M. It was (and is) a shame that characters such as Q and Moneypenny didn't return in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but luckily M is still in the movies. - Daniel Craig. No matter what people think of him, the new James Bond is excellent. Daniel matches up perfectly with Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

Story: -- Good Guy Characters: + Bad Guy Characters: - Bond Babes: ++ Locations: +- Cars (always important in JB movies): + Action sequences: + Title Song: -- Humor: -

Overall: 6.5 out of 10
1/10
rubbish I guess...
phil-932-2378065 May 2019
I don't know what the film was like because I couldn't get past the opening car chase sequence, far too much shakycam to even see the action... So if the rest of the film is like that then forget it.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum of Suckers
mr_popcorn7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace aims but misses, it shoots but it doesn't score. Its Bonnie without Clyde and its one of the disappointing movies to have come out this year. It really was a shock because everything seemed so right before its release. It had a credible director, Marc Forster who directed some of the finest films in recent memory, the plot seemed so right, its a revenge tale; its a look at Bond's ugly side and his inner demons and they cast a perfect actor as the villain. Mathieu Amalric was outstanding in "Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and I couldn't wait to see how he fares well as a Bond villain.

Well, it turns out Dominic Greene is just as uninteresting as a plank of wood. Gemma Arterton's character Agent Fields was just there for eye-candy and we could have just got on with the story line without her. The tragic conclusion that happened to her was totally unnecessary and honestly, it was a waste of running time. Given that this is a Bond movie, we should expect flashy gadgets, a treasure trove of hot Bond babes and signature trade marks that we all got used to in the first 21 films.

Sadly, they're all not here. The things that we liked about this franchise was just gone with the wind. No gadgets, no classic one-liners like the Martini one and the gun in a barrel intro was left out until the end credits. Granted there is a dazzling Bond girl here in the form of Ukrainian born actress Olga Kurylenko but Bond didn't even get the chance to use his charm and sex appeal to have mighty sex with her. Besides, what's a Bond girl got to do other than have sex with the Man, right? The action scenes was turned up a notch but it gets in the way of the storyline and you end up with a noisy film going nowhere. But nevertheless, the choreography was impressive and is a step above to the action scenes of its predecessor Casino Royale. There is not much to say about acting other than Daniel Craig is the epitome of what Ian Fleming had in mind. Dame Judi Dench gives her supporting powers and the two of them are the compass of a lost movie that was going nowhere. Director Marc Forster mishandled the camera especially in some of the action scenes and it is rather obvious that his priority went to the guns-blazing, barrel exploding action rather than the storyline itself. The audience was glad when Casino Royale rejuvenated the dying franchise but the gladness only lasted two years when Forster flushed it all in the toilet with this disappointing mess. He should never direct an action movie again.
5/10
Good Action, But Not a Bond Story At Al
eric26200318 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For those action junkies who came to see a solid action flick with plenty of explosions and fight scenes will be moderately entertained. However, if you're here to see a Bond flick with the traditional Bond themes we've relished all those years, well there's always the video stores to find classic Bond because you find any of the formula that pays homage to the Ian Fleming adaptation of 007 like the others before "Quantum of Solace".

In most James Bond movie our suave hero goes through his days with his flawless appeal, his witty one-liners, his cool gizmo's and whatnot's and the occasional slug fest when needed. Here, all you see is violence without a story to go around. It looked and felt more like a straight arrow action flick rather than a compelling Bond story that we've adulated to over the nearly 50 years.

In fact all the story is just a narrow continuation to where Bond left off by getting revenge over Vespar Lynde's (Eva Green) murder and nothing more. Sure it makes for a believable sequel, but the villains in the plot are purely banal. I always yearned for a Blofeld type Bond villain, cunning, insane, driver for world domination, but here, it just doesn't exist. The motives of the villains is just plain pathetic.

What's the purpose of controlling Bolivia's water and charging people extra then they usually pay for? There's no point to it at all? They're poor as it is already. It's not going to make these villain richer than they were before. Please spare me!
10/10
This James Bond really works.
DarkVulcan2919 November 2008
Casino Royale was alright, but it's nothing compared to Quantum of Solace. This movie for me, made up for Casino Royale mistakes.

It starts up where Casino Royale left off. Where Bond is bent on revenge for the death of his loved one. He is tracking down and spying on evil business man named Dominic Greene(Mathieu Amarlric),but then the stakes quickly get too high when Greene discovers his existence, and puts a bounty out on Bond's head. But Bond ends saving Camille(Olga Kurylenko, Hit Man, Max Payne) a former employee of Greenes. But will she help him or betray him?

This was the best Bond since whenever. The action was great, almost like The Bourne Identity. And unlike the other Bond flicks, there was no element of fantasy to it. The action was real, the villains are real, everything. I like Daniel Craig portrayal as Bond, not always suave, but clumsy and vulnerable at times. The most believable performance as James Bond in a while. Keep it up Daniel.
6/10
Could have been better
LazySod20 November 2008
Picking up shortly after Casino Royale stops this film is not to be seen without its direct predecessor. The story line just continues, and not in a bad way. Bond, driven by the lust for revenge and hatred, sets out on his quest for personal vengeance and doesn't really care who or what gets in the way.

In style this film isn't much different from the previous one either. It is again miles away from the original James Bond format (which is a good thing IMO) and simply stampedes on from the word go. And that's where, for me, a bit of the problem starts. It doesn't give itself or the audience much or any time to get used to the settings, it just tosses action sequence after action sequence at the watcher and it could have used a few more restful moments just to catch a breath and explain some of the things that are going on.

It isn't bad, not by a long shot. The cast is played out very well and it is a nice action film. But had they given a little more time to it it would have been a great action film with a bit of depth to it.

6 out of 10 fast moving agents
6/10
Nothing special...disposable installment of the series
dfle318 December 2008
Having seen the first of the Daniel Craig 007 movies and enjoying it, I was looking forward to this sequel. It was at the cinema that I saw Craig's first up effort "Casino Royale" and I hadn't seen the film again. So, going into the sequel cold, I must say how disjointed it all felt. None of the baddies in the movie rung any bells for me, so I didn't really get a sense of this movie being a sequel, with Bond seeking vengeance on his girlfriend's murderers. Maybe the baddies in this movie weren't in the first movie, which would explain it.

If this movie is meant to be about Bond getting revenge, it doesn't really function well on that level either. Sure, it has the usual quota of action set pieces, but nothing memorable...like my first Bond movie, "For your eyes only" which had that classic scene of Bond driving a Mini at full speed down a winding hill road, backwards. Even "Casino Royale" had that daring foot chase scene in some dangerous locations.

The editing in this movie is hyper-kinetic. It's quite plausible, I think, to have this style of editing used to great effect-e.g.to create the illusion of something spectacular having happened when it would be very hard or expensive to actually do it (say for car chase sequences where dodging other cars is an issue), however, here the method is merely disorientating. You know something exciting is happening...you just don't know what it is...the camera spins and swoons and you're never really quite sure what is going on. Action fans may feel cheated by this. On "At the movies", the director explained that he wanted to put his own personal style on the movie. Personally, I don't think that this 'style' is very personal or effective.

Lastly, this just doesn't seem like it's following on directly after "Casino Royale" and it lacks the old Bond movie highlights of a great opening sequence (a la the Moore years) and a great title theme (with the likes of the legendary Shirley Bassey singing the theme to more than one Bond movie.

Action aplenty, signifying nothing.

P.S. I have recently rewatched this movie the day after rewatching "Casino Royale" again. This method does improve the coherence of the story (but not of the editing and cinetography, unfortunately!). So, I'd recommend watching this film soon after watching "Casino Royale". In that case I'd give this movie 75/100. It's a good story, with realistic evil schemes...just spoiled by incoherent and pretentious cinematography and editing.
3/10
no gadgets
paulsheriff5 April 2009
this is not a bond film as we know it ..yes not a bad film but not a good bond film ..bring back jaws or odd job ..and the gadgets .bond with out gadgets is not bond ..he is a secret agent ..with secret agent stuff thats what bond is all about ..i can see where they are coming from making the film more real and harder but they have forgot that bond has always been a bit cheesy ...so as far as bond films go this was utter crap ..not down to the acting ..but lack of a great story line or great henchmen ..i would rather watch a old bond film any-day ... its not to late bring back Sean Connery 1 more time with a gadget wheel chair
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
All action - which can be a bad thing
mrohlee17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie was action packed. The stunt work was great. With CGI it's difficult to tell how much was real but it sure looked like there were people taking most of those bumps. There was a nice sort of tribute to "Goldfinger" in there with the manner of death of a woman Bonds meets and hops into bed with about 20 minutes after meeting her.

Those were the positives for me.

On the down side - I am sorry to say I didn't remember who was who from the last movie so I wasn't sure which people Bond was after due to the current movie plot and which were left over from the last movie. The main villain was kind of a shady business man. He wasn't interested in taking over the world or anything, just wanted to make money by taking over the water rights in 3rd world countries. He was connected some how to a larger group of shady business people. I don't think he will wind up ranking with the top Bond villains.

Bond hooks up with a woman who (I think) was in the Bolivian secret service but apparently was out on her own seeking revenge. She and Bond cross paths a few times but in the end he drops her off in some slum area of a city with no explanation, I guess she lived around there but that seemed a bit strange. The actress was good, looked great, but what the heck was going on there? The fight scenes were shot in the style where everything was made blurry fast by camera movement to the point where I had a hard time telling who was hitting who. At one time "steady cams" were a great improvement as they eliminated the jerky camera movements but it seems in this movie they intentionally went for an anti-steady cam look. I don't understand this style but this isn't the only movie doing things that way.

In the fights Bond seems to always get his gun kicked or knocked out of his hand at the beginning of the fight. I had to wonder why he didn't carry a backup piece or a knife or something since he had such a hard time holding onto his gun.

The climax takes place in a hotel built in the middle of know where that had tanks of easily pierced/exploding tanks of hydrogen scattered about. The secondary villain was an army general who the business people were going to turn into El Presidente with the agreement of the British and American governments. He was about to launch a coup but had just a couple of guys with him. At the time when the coup was about he take place he takes time out to try to rape a hotel waitress. I thought maybe he should be thinking about taking over the country first and raping later but apparently he wasn't taking a hands-on role in the overthrow of the government.

While Bond does kill off the 10 or so bad guys at the hotel there is nothing said about the rest of the organization that was supposed to be over throwing the government. So did that coup go on and another guy got made the new El Presidente or was the whole thing postponed? That was just left hanging. The business people still apparently had control of the countries water supply. Bond apparently blows town leaving the locals dying of thirst.

The CIA puts a kill on sight order on Bonds because he was going "rogue" trying to stop the overthrow of a government. Hasn't that been done before? In Die Another Day and License to Kill wasn't he going rogue in those too? How many times can they do that? You would think Bond would be getting fed up with his own people turning on him like that.

Bottom line is that I don't think I will watch this again even if I was given a free ticket. Once is enough. If you like mindless action you might find it enjoyable but if you are looking for a "James Bond" movie, this isn't it.
3/10
My Quantum of Solace for this Movie is Zero
TimBoHannon16 November 2008
Ever since I was old enough to gain admission to PG-13 movies, I have always made sure to attend the newest Bond movie during opening weekend. Never before have I been so upset. Albert R. Broccoli produced every James Bond movie from "Dr. No" to "GoldenEye." He would be ashamed of what his daughter Barbara and stepson Michael G. Wilson have done to Bond. A large faction of fans has become concerned that James Bond has been altered beyond recognition. I have advocated patience. "Casino Royale" is intended to document how he becomes the character we all love. However, there is no acceptable reason for what "Quantum of Solace" does with him. Sadly, the paper shredding job done to the character is not this movie's worst sin.

James Bond was always an immoral man, but fights for worthy values greater than himself. He has committed himself to protecting England first and the rest of humanity when needed. He does not murder because it amuses him or provides fulfillment. He fights to save lives and improve the quality of those lives. James is a protector of all that is good in this world. "This is about stopping a war," he tells Wai Lin in "Tomorrow Never Dies." If one watched the 21 Bond movies and took notes, they would find 200 quotes and decisions demonstrating that aspect of his character.

The people behind the 22nd throw that into a dumpster. This James Bond resembles Star Trek's Khan minus the intelligence. He is a man ruled by wrath and bitterness now. His mind has become so distorted by bloodlust that he begins to act like the Punisher. The consequences of his actions are hinted at in the trailer, but what the movie bludgeons its viewers with is even worse. "Is this how you treat your friends?" wonders Camille (rising superstar Olga Kurylenko). For the first time, Bond is unlikable.

The least coherent of the preceding 21 movies is "Octopussy." That movie is a model of clear storytelling next to this 225 million dollar plane crash. "Quantum of Solace" is not a movie. It is a collection of action scenes glued together. Did they conceive the action first and then meet for 60 minutes to decide how to connect them? The movie has James globetrotting with the speed of a terrified cheetah in fast forward. The script is full of pointless dead ends that receive and inordinate amount of attention. The villain, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) has friends in high places, but his connection to them, their motives and the benefit of their partnership are not clear.

Early reviews indicated that the plot is poorly explained and tough to follow. I prepared myself for that possibility, but was disgusted by the severity that fault. "Quantum of Solace" opens with a car pursuit. Who is chasing Bond? How do they know where he is? Why were they in that location in the first place? The movie does not consider those questions. A foot chase soon follows, but who Bond is chasing and how he connects with what transpired right before are a mystery. The entire movie is sloppy, and no other Bond movie even approaches it. "Quantum of Solace" is no easier to understand than "The Chronicles of Riddick." Marc Forster made his name with high-quality, low-budget dramas. "Quantum of Solace" proves that action movies are a galaxy out of his depth. The action does not border on incomprehensible; it is absolutely incomprehensible. Forster shakes and jerks camera so violently that its holder should have shredded tissue at every joint, if not broken bones and torn muscles. Paul Greengrass introduced the earthquake-camera. Forster raises the Richter scale to 10.

His errors do not end there. Forster's edits the action with such speed that were this movie a sprinter it would make Usain Bolt look sluggish. The average shot length during the action is far under a second. His shots are from a variety of angles and distances. Following the action is like climbing Mount Everest. Forster's editing and cinematography are so dreadful that I had trouble determining who is who during a fight involving two men *wearing completely different colors*! Their positions in the environment and in relation to each other are literally impossible to see. In Greengrass' "The Bourne Supremacy," Jarda and Bourne are similarly dressed during their scuffle and it is not difficult to tell them apart. "Quantum of Solace" required an enormous budget. Forster nullifies all the money and effort put into the action. What a costly waste! Daniel Craig's James Bond is far more immortal than any to come before. At least two hundred bullets are aimed at his car during the opening chase. Most are fired from close range. Predictably, Bond remains unharmed even though the car is pummeled. At least Pierce Brosnan always drove heavily armored vehicles during these chases. The science fiction elements in "Die Another Day" created drastic animosity among many vocal Bond fans. "Quantum of Solace" is an equal offender. MI-6 uses audio-visual equipment imported from the Star Trek movies. Their display panels look nearly identical to Zion's in the Matrix sequels. M (Judi Dench) comes a quarter-step away from talking to a computer.

Even a villain of historical proportions could not have saved "Quantum of Solace." Dominic Greene is among most boring in the series. The movie is in such a rush that Amalric has little screen time. He can not save Greene; nobody could have. His grand scheme borders on moronic. If the producers want to emulate Bourne, hire Doug Liman and sack the current writing trio. The end provides a beacon of hope that the real Bond will soon be back, but that does not excuse a dismal movie. The series has jumped the rails, and I hope it has not jumped the shark. There can be no solace for the cheated fans.
5/10
Bond goes green?
stensson8 November 2008
These films have been radicalized. The enemies are no longer the commies or some international thug God-knows-what organization. The enemies are those exploring environment and aspiring Latin American wannabe-dictators.

OK, we can have that. The main problem in this the latest one, is the action scenes. The cuts aren't professional and you often find it hard to find out there Bond himself is among all the bullets, arms and fires.

There's not lots of humor here. It's like Connery/Moore were a thousand years away. Anyway, this will go on and on for many more decades to come. James Bond is a phenomena. No film character has lived so long through continuity, not remakes.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A solid enough action film, but a definite step down from "Casino Royale"
MovieAddict20165 April 2009
NOTE: This review was originally written in January, after I saw the film in theaters, but I held off on posting it until now because I wanted to watch it again on DVD first. Unfortunately, my opinion on the film didn't change much the second time 'round (somehow I was expecting it to).

--

For how long can you breathe new life into a franchise before you end up entirely reinventing it? That is the question that plagues Quantum of Solace, an entertaining but flawed sequel to 2006's Casino Royale.

To be fair, this film had a lot to live up to; Royale was widely touted as not only one of the best films of the entire 40-year-old Bond series, but perhaps even the best. It made numerous critics' year-end award lists. It earned Daniel Craig the status of being the ideal modern-day Bond, carrying with him all the grim and serious introspection that has become a staple of this millennium's entertainment. We are accustomed to brooding heroes in this age, and Craig fit the bill, offering a complex and daring portrayal of what had become a very outdated, campy character.

Quantum's first misstep is that it runs with the dark elements of Royale but maintains none of the franchise's staple humour. Every Bond film has its fair share of tongue-in-cheek moments; even the opening action sequence in Casino had some fun and inventiveness to it. Quantum is by-the-numbers — a big long car chase, so tightly edited that you can hardly tell what's happening to whom (a technical flaw that occurs throughout the movie, to the point where it makes the chaotic stylings of Paul Greengrass look Scorsese going through one of his move-the-camera-as-little-as-possible moments).

Some critics have complained that Quantum presents a boring, revenge-fueled Bond, stripped of all characteristics. It's true — to a point. This isn't the first time Bond has gone on a revenge spree; the difference is, last time he didn't disarm people with Jason Bourne-style physical defense moves. Actual plot mechanisms and general design aside, including the whole "Ludlum ripped off Fleming" argument, the producers are so clearly trying to ape the action framings of the highly successful Bourne trilogy; money talks, and Bourne shouted, so it's only common sense that others would follow in pursuit. The problem is, Quantum's director, Marc Forster, has no experience with action sequences whatsoever, and the editing — as aforementioned — is so fast that you literally can't tell what's going on half the time. Every time the movie cuts to an action sequence — which is quite frequently — you have to wait until it's over to figure out who's left standing.

The plot doesn't make much sense and, when you finally figure out what's going on, it's not nearly as complex as you would have hoped (in order to justify the poor plot setup points earlier in the film). Basically, the movie picks up right where the last one left off, with Bond trying to hunt down a new elite criminal organization named QUANTUM, which was responsible for the death of his One True Love. Bond is joined this time around by a feisty heroine (Olga Kurylenko, exhibiting not nearly as much charisma or acting capabilities as Eva Green), who is also seeking revenge against someone affiliated with QUANTUM. She joins forces with Bond and they uncover a vast conspiracy (if that's what you wish to call it) to control a region's water supply.

In spite of a poor plot and other aforementioned flaws, the movie is nevertheless quite entertaining and, perhaps because of my low expectations after reading some very critical reviews ahead of the screening, I didn't feel terribly disappointed. The movie kept my interest, which is more than can be said for some of the '70s and '80s Bond pictures. It also wasn't nearly as far-fetched as the last few Brosnan pictures, although the much-critiqued high velocity plane sequence (which ends rather lamely, mind you) does seem very gratuitous and interrupts the film's otherwise bleak, down-to-earth approach.

Ultimately, this isn't as deep or emotionally gripping a film as the last Bond picture, but it's far from a disaster. Truth be told, the fact that the movie already had a release date set before the last one was even out of theaters was never a good sign. They rushed into production with an inexperienced action director and an unfinished script, trying to capitalize upon the fleeting hype of Casino Royale without stopping at any point to ask themselves why that film was so well-received.

The high expectations audiences were left with after the closing shots of Casino Royale were never going to be met under these circumstances, and — in spite of all its flaws — Quantum is still an enjoyable action flick that, hopefully, a few years from now, will be remembered for having served as a somewhat disappointing bridge between two fantastic Bond films, and not as having been the beginning of the end for the Craig's run as cinema's iconic hero. He deserves better, and so do we.
4/10
Bourne 4
John von K3 December 2008
On arrival at my local multiplex I asked for 2 tickets for "Bourne 4" and and the ticket seller knew exactly what I wanted - he didn't bat an eye! It's not a Bond film, it's a bland B movie with expensive action sequences that are neither exciting or fresh and the editing is of the "Let's agitate the viewer's eye and they'll think that they are excited rather that simply irritated" - the editing is so frenetic that you I really found myself drifting off - at one point I went "Oh Bond is hanging upside down - how did that happen?" Henchmen who couldn't hit a barn door and a lead villain who is bland. But then so is Bond/Bourne played by a tired looking, short, fair haired, middle-aged character actor with narrow shoulders. On radio Mr Craig would be a perfect Bond but visually it should be James Purefoy, Gerard Butler etc; Nice theme tune though and soundtrack music.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Thumbs Down
robertpowell1 March 2020
Confusing, all over the place. About the worst Bond film ever. This seemed as if a first-draft was filmed when it required at least ten drafts.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond fails to ignite again.
come2whereimfrom4 November 2008
So its broken all the records in this country in its opening weekend but lets look past that and ask ourselves is the new, in this revitalised franchise, James Bond film actually any good? well its not bad, its OK, but its not brilliant, not quite good enough to get four stars not bad enough to warrant two so a solid three then right down the middle. The first thing you notice about this episode is thanks to director Marc Forster who has brought an arty edge to the ice cold killer, hand to hand combat is spliced with a famous horse race or an opera and typography appears cleverly on the screen to let us know which part of the world Bond is in on his rouge quest to avenge the death of his lover Vesper Lynd. Pouty mcCraig is back as 007 and what he lacks in gadgets he makes up for in injuries, yes he bleeds which invariably means he has to take his shirt off a lot to nurse wounds, womankind and homosexual men catered for blokes get the equally pouty Olga Kurylenko as the more sensible named Camille and a brief glimpse of rising Brit Gemma Arterton as the ridiculously named Strawberry Fields. Judi Dench reprises her role as M and is really starting to flesh out the character and give her real depth but the show is stolen by Mathieu Amalric as bad guy Dominic Greene who adds a general air of creepy whenever he is on screen. The action in the movie is relentless and from the opening car chase we then get chases on foot, bike, boat and aeroplane I was beginning to expect a chase on space hoppers after we had exhausted all the other options. All that said at least we've ditched the camp and stupid gadgets in favour of the leaner meaner Bond but I can't help but thinking that inside every new Bond film is a Bourne film trying to get out.
3/10
No measure of comfort in Quantum of Solace
bill-102318 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a life-long Bond fan, who has read all of Ian Fleming's novels and seen every movie from "Dr. No" to date, I'm afraid that "Quantum of Solace" is the end of the line.

The opening titles are scattered, the so-called theme is horrible and not likely to endure past the weekend (unlike the many great themes that can strike a responsive chord decades later).

I have no problem with Daniel Craig's interpretation of the Bond role, and Judi Dench certainly doesn't pale in comparison to Bernard Lee.

But the most disturbing aspect of the movie is that it largely resembles a global video game. Bond's superhuman athleticism destroys any sense of reality. And the continuity is also unbelievable; in one scene Bond dispatches of three agents inside an elevator in about two seconds, while his subsequent battle with the pipsqueek villain, Dominic Greene (imagine Evander Holyfield fighting Woody Allen) rages on and on. Argh!

Enough is enough. I imagine Cubby Broccoli is turning over in his grave.
6/10
Fast pace too much for tired Bond.
Philby-311 November 2008
The last two Bond films have had Bond at the end of his emotional tether. on the point of resignation (or even termination) from the Service. Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but his virile good looks mock the worn - out spy image, despite the efforts of the make-up department. He seems to make a remarkable recovery from each set of injuries he receives.

This film is a sequel to "Casino Royale" - indeed the story follows right on with a pre-credit sequence of a hairy chase along an Italian lakeside road. The Aston, car lovers will note, is only slightly damaged and Bond motors on to Siena, and arrives in the middle of a horse race. A thrilling rooftop chase, the best in the movie, ensues, then to Austria, Haiti, Italy again and finally to action sequences in Bolivia (actually filmed in Chile). There are two problems with the action. First, there is little escalation of tension. Everything happens so fast that it becomes a blur. Second, this is compounded in places by running two different action sequences at once and intercutting them, which adds to the confusion.

The storyline is the usual conspiracy of world domination, this time through locking up water supplies, but the chief villain played by the fine French actor from the diving bell Matthias is not very prepossessing. Olga the new Bond girl, pretty as she is, doesn't make much of an impact either. Judy Dench as M however has a better part than in "Casino" and makes the most of it.

Visually, the new Bond movies are still great to watch, at least if you like demolition Derbys. But dramatically the content has become very thin. There is hardly an original line in the script, let alone an original idea. Others have noted the similarity with the Bourne movies (which had some of the same production team). The first Bond film, "Dr No" appeared 45 years ago, and I still remember chunks of it. This film is not likely to last so well.
6/10
James Bond has lost his identity
joeormerod1 November 2008
Why do people love bond films so much? The answer is simple, it's because they differ from the other action films not by the content of the action but by the character and style of the films. If the bond films don't have this character and style then they don't differ from the masses and become bland meaning we have no reason to love bonds unique character. Unfortunately this is exactly what has happened in Quantum of Solace.

I believe Bond has a formula and every film should contain in my view, Q, the gadgets, the car, the sayings ''Bond, James Bond'' and ''vodka martini shaken not stirred'', the girls, the ruthless bad guys etc. As this formula is what gives bond his identity.

Apparently these characteristicts which make bond so unique were left out of this film as they are apparently too dated. But surely the director Marc Forster should have stepped up to the challenge.

This film was very disappointing and bond has been stripped of personality by Marc Foster making him a bland and undistinguishable from Bourne etc etc…..

Also the camera work was very annoying.
3/10
Not another Bond film... SADLY!
lanimae611 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I love my bond. I've spent many hours watching and re-watching every outing by 007. We purposely watched only the trailers for the new movie, no reviews. Why? We didn't want to spoil the surprise. We booked out Gold Class at Greater Union in Sydney George St, got there early to avoid the rush, but the theatre was nowhere nearly empty! Imagine my shock. After ordering the champs to be brought in halfway through, we made our way in. For the next 2 hours, the most interesting thing was the steward bringing our champagne and nibbles. Poor Cubby Broccoli would be spinning in his grave like a Christmas turkey of he knew what a "Barry Crocker" the studio was going to try and pass off as the sequel to Casino Royale. I love Daniel Craig as Bond and Dame Judy is my hero, but the five year old who wrote this story needs a spanking. There is more of that silly running/jumping/leaping and other similarly improbable moves that even the fittest superhero would have had trouble with. It worked in Casino Royale but is done, done, done to death. Unlike Casino Royale, poor "Q" has been given his notice and is sunning himself in Greece, because he certainly didn't work on the DB, or the watch, or belt or any other Bond-like gadget. No lasers or guns under the bonnet, no oil in the boot. Just some poor sap running about and punching/shooting and otherwise killing people. The committee (who never met) that consulted with the five year old to write the words and story line had obviously never seen another Bond film, not even the previous one. This movie was all over the place like a mad womans' breakfast. Someone got a whole bunch of stuntmen together and filmed them beating each other to a pulp, then got another man to find an excuse to blow up a god-awful alleged hotel in the middle of the desert. Oh by the way, just to make sure that it does fly apart, the seamlessly work into the story that it runs on fuel cells. Every room has a large cylinder in the corner with large friendly letters saying "hydrogen" plastered across them. It's just as well they all faced the camera or we would never have guessed that some kind of gun fight was about to ensue, and moreover, that the place was about to become visible from space as an appropriately huge explosion tore through the building blowing concrete to smithereens. Luckily it missed bond, phew! Even better, it only put a bit of a hole in his particular room instead of launching it into orbit around Jupiter. And as if by chance, the hole was just big enough for two people scramble out, would you believe it? But not onto a ledge, no no no, down the rubble, which had thoughtfully landed in a big pile right outside the hole so they could caper down it and on to the sand and through the desert to safety. Just as well they weren't thirsty or die of the injuries that killed every other living being in a 200 kilometre radius. I'm sorry but this un-007-like story was bad and almost impossible to follow, perhaps an extra few bottles of champs would have helped. It bore almost no resemblance at all to a bond film but instead was a series of cutting-room-floor actions scenes cobbled together by a blind man and foisted off onto us as a carefully considered 007 feature film. The actors tried their best, but bless them, the words "silk purse" and "sows ear" come to mind. I DO like an action flick, and there was certainly action, but I don't think it was all filmed for this picture. I think some clever clogs in Hollywood had a little too much blow when stapled the scenes together, because I don't think he got them in the right order or in the right movie. Since our most entertaining thing about the evening was trying to find the nibbles in the dark, I would wait until the DVD comes to your local Blockbuster and goes to weekly, get 5 friends to chip in and you'll have value for money. As long, of course, as you have a six pack of champs, two bottles of voddie an endless-tray of nibbles and a whole bunch patience. The only reason we gave the film 3 was the Daniel was partially clad, but not, in our opinion, for anywhere near long enough to get the extra points. This movie was NOT a Bond film, it was its' poor mongrel cousin.

We wait in anticipation for the next instalment and hope this crew got the chop before the whole franchise is deader than a dingo's donger!
5/10
Comes Up Short
gavin69425 September 2017
James Bond (Daniel Craig) descends into mystery as he tries to stop a mysterious organization from eliminating a country's most valuable resource.

Although it would be wrong to say I am a big James Bond fan to begin with, I had seen every film up to this point, which is no small commitment. Daniel Craig does a fine job, incidentally. I don't know that he has an iconic look the way Connery or Brosnan did, but he probably is not the worst man ever to play Bond.

For me, the flaws in this film can be summed up as direction or cinematography. The story is interesting, the characters and acting are fine. However, the action scenes look really cheap and the computer effects are awful. Why this was allowed to happen, I don't know, but these are probably the worst action scenes in the whole series (though I have not yet seen "Spectre").
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond is in trouble
mazdaman00722 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where has James Bond gone ? If anyone finds him let me know.

No charm, no style, no wit. Please bring back Roger Moore (I can't believe I said that).

I am a massive Bond fan and have bought all of the DVD's twice over (and will buy them again on Blu-ray) and this is the first time I don't think I will buy the DVD. Unless Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli make a serious reversal to the style of the Bonds of old this series is going in the toilet. I want world domination not Bolivian water bills.

Look, I love the Bourne movies despite Paul Greengrass' shaky cam effect on Supremacy and Ultimatum however when I go to see a Bond movie I don't want to see a Bourne movie. I also don't want any CGI although thankfully this is minimal in QoS.

While Daniel Craig is a superb actor he lacks the sophistication and wit of a Connery, Moore or Brosnan. Remember how the Bond series appeared to be on it's last legs after Timothy Dalton left the role ? He was a fine serious actor as well. We don't want realism in a Bond movie, we want to escape for two hours with an old friend.

I really thought they were on to something with Casino Royale but now I have serious doubts. I could accept the reboot concept in Royale and was willing to overlook the omissions (gun barrel, Q, Moneypenny, gadgets etc.) to bring us Bond as a raw MI6 recruit. The end of CR is totally setup to declare "hey look, Bond has arrived" when they show him in the tailored suit, play the Bond theme, and of course utter the line "Bond, James Bond". Then they just throw it out the window in QoS to give us some XXX or Transporter clone.

As for the song I have to hand it to Jack White and Alicia Keys, they have done the impossible and overtaken Madonna for the worst Bond theme song ever.

I am really, really disappointed.
6/10
Quantum of Solace
artynewbold1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having been so impressed with Casino Royale, which I felt was a film that stood on its own without the Bond brand protection, I was hoping for, and expecting a film of a similar quality.

I felt that the first half of the film wandered through one action scene to the next, and for the first time in a long time, found myself shuffling in my seat and frankly a little bored.

I accept that this was always going to be a different "type" of film from Casino Royale in that the action scenes were supposed to address the anger built up in Bond, yet I feel that it genuinely focused too much on technology and action sequences, bearing little thought to the deeper inner demons that I enjoyed so much in the previous film.

Having said all this, there were flashes of utter brilliance; for example the end of the Opera scene, which was more like something of a Scorcese epic - it made it feel like a proper grown up film that deserved recognition in its on right - and then it stuttered back to the overall slow and dialogue sparse plot.

The nails in the coffin for me were the basic, avoidable continuity errors right at the start of the film (Craig's position in Aston and Craig's collar in talks with M). All the money thrown at this film and it lacked simple editing and thought.

Overall, an unfortunately shallow film (with echoes of Licence to Kill) which will hopefully provide a clear link and purpose to Craig's third Bond film. This film is worth a watch (probably only once), but make sure you book a very comfy seat, and don't expect too much of it.
3/10
The first Bond movie without Bond scenes
miglmu22 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1. This Daniel Craig Bond was said to be more human. When his girl friend seeks revenge he gives her a breathing lesson for the moment of the kill. The Roger Moore Bond gave his revenge seeking girlfriend (in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY) the tip to dig TWO graves (so better not take revenge). What solution is more human? But Mr. Craig himself is okay as a more serious Bond.

2. The only gorgeous location is a water reservoir under the desert. Later Bond SAYS it must be destroyed (so the water is available for the people again). That is like saying in LIVE AND LET DIE "I will walk across some crocodiles to escape." or "I will use a car that can transform into a submarine." in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or "I will catch a plane while free-falling." in GOLDENEYE and then not showing it. Cubby Broccoli will turn in his grave facing a Bond movie without ending. Just some talking to a guy in a room without showing it. What was the film about? Some crime group and Bond killing some of them?! Perhaps it will become a trilogy?! It was usually great to identify with Bond with his never-give-up attitude, finding a way using wit, a cool oneliner or a surprising technical innovation. But I can't identify with a killer on a childish revenge mission. No romance and no humor. If this was a Steven Segal movie no one would say they were hunting in "Bond" territory.

3. The car chase in the beginning may be stylized editing and entertaining but you don't see much of the location. Most of the action in this movie could have been filmed anywhere because you do not get a feeling for a real location, except for the Palio horse race. The movie looks like $30m instead of the reported $200m as if they wanted to hide something using fast editing. You need the making-of to be impressed, the film doesn't deliver. Even the real Craig jumping onto balconies in Italy is only visible in the making-of. In the movie it's so fast it could be any stuntman.

4. Mathis was the traitor in CASINO ROYALE, suddenly in this footnote-movie to CASINO ROYALE he is a friend. So who cares for anything the filmmakers present to you, it may be changed...

5. There are no major images that linger in your mind like in every other Bond movie. And the "stunts"? Well, some hopping with a motor bike onto a little boat, some tangling with rope, some jumping out of planes that looks very artificial compared to MOONRAKER...

6. The Bond movies were the leaders of the entertainment movie with style, class and images you haven't seen before. Even CASINO ROYALE had that quality. Now it follows some over the top "modern" fast look that is old fashioned already.
7/10
Sequel to Casino Royale has taken a step back.
rustyalex220 November 2008
What made Casino Royale stand out from the previous generation Bond films? Was it the action? Was it the story? Correct it was both. Bond is back, but he's not better then ever. The hype circulated under Quantum of Solace for some time and it has even been in competition with The Dark Knight for the best action film of 2008. Indeed it had a lot of action but the plot however didn't redeem to that of what it was worth in the previous Bond.

While Quantum of Solace was suppose to continue from Casino Royale, the writers made it seem like they went off course a little bit during times. In some moments, there had been relentless action, bringing sophisticated entertainment, which indeed was awesome in that sense. Very unrealistic, however, he's Bond. He's strong and he's a hero. The ending had been rushed and was too quick, if time had been taken, the ending would've tied in with the rest of the plot and maybe shined a little over the edgy climax. If by all means your an action fan see this film, like with The Dark Knight, both films compare in being darker than their predecessors.

What I loved about the film was simple, it had been the acting. A few lines were cheesy, but I guess in the current generation a few lines of humor won't wreck a serious film. Judi Dench is yet again M and she does it marvelously. Daniel Craig the blonde bond is by far the best bond ever, he proved this so with Casino Royale. It was great to see character conflict and not just pure violence. Loved the conflict between M and Bond in Qunatum, it was a great addition towards the film, to give it a vibe to the people who love a movie for its quality, in all areas.

If I were to compare and contrast this to Casino royale there would be many similarities and differences. Quantum has many flaws, one being it's structure. What I loved about Casino Royale had been the way it was organized, while the villain had been around causing trouble. Bond had his girls and his close death call by his side, which was finally good to see him come close to death in a Bond film. The violence was controlled and worked/flowed well with it's great plot. The villains weren't too evil and this continued in Quantum were the villain was the biggest loser ever, it was weird. The shots were too fast in my opinion on some scenes, I couldn't tell who was beating up who or who had killed who, some of it was crazy. The directing had had a big downfall. I noticed straight away while watching it, that the directing was different, since it wasn't the same director who directed Casino. To continue a great trilogy in which the blonde bond trilogy is being made, you must have one director for the whole trilogy or else it's not going to work well as it would have. I mean look at The Godfather and Lord of the Rings the whole trilogy had been a masterpiece because only one director directed it.

Overall though, Bond has taken a step back from Casino Royale. And I hope this is recovered in the third one, because there were a few noticeable flaws. Like I said if you love action or if your a fan of Bond see it. If your not, well maybe your night out to see it, is not such a good idea. This film had its moments and is an average action, which doesn't compare to the structure of this years best action The Dark Knight.
7/10
Quantum Of Solace, Least Of BOND.
mohd_nassef13 November 2008
Since Pierce Brosnan started playing bond, I've started enjoying the game despite all the ridiculous history of the Bond brand and when they announced that Daniel Craig is taking over I thought "Gees" we are going back to the dark ages. well, I was wrong. Casino Royale to the series of Bond was like Batman Begins for Batman. The film was seriously good, it was a rebirth of the brand totally genuine and lacked all the silliness that was associated with Mr.Bond movies. The directing along with the film editing was awesome, Danial Craig's performance was brilliant and the film was coherent and sharp. Now I can confidently claim that Daniel Craig is the best suited James Bond of all time. So we are standing on pretty solid ground. Quantum Of Solace is no good if you haven't watched Casino Royale because for the first time a bond movie is based on its predecessor. the film is quite dark in tone and is over-dramatic for this kind of movie but let's get to the serious stuff. what's with the shaky hand held cams and the fast shots of the action scenes ? it gives you a fake feeling of what's going on the scene and add to that terrible editing and you end up with a messed up piece of work and a headache. I wonder who was responsible of casting Marc Forster for Director, the man has no taste of Bond at all. wasn't it enough for them to take away Moneypenny, Q, the gadgets, the humor and witticism, his "shaken, not stirred", the line "my name is Bond, James Bond." where the hell is the opening gun-barrel-sequence ?? even the Brilliant music composer David Arnold was miles away from Bond although he made some serious soundtracks before but again where is James Bond theme ? Anyway the movie isn't that bad but it's sure not a 007 movie and I'm putting a score of "7/10" just for Daniel Craig and Judi Dench performance. But for the 23rd Bond movie, please bring the soul of the series back.
Out! Damned plot.
trimmerb12341 October 2012
In comparison to classic Bondage - a memorable villain holding the world to ransom for $1 million (adjusted for inflation) - the plot in this is a second feature - something to do with the Third World and oil or was it water? Never mind, it's not important. The villain is kind of creepy but as its not clear exactly what his villainy consists of then he's not important. The love interest is also not that interesting, the leathery Daniel Craig shows more feelings towards a dying male buddy than to his screen-mate. Craig, the screenwriter and director have a Bond who is definitely top notch when it comes to super fast super-competent violence but whose hormones while underlining his maleness and readiness for violence, do not seem to otherwise affect him. He is a believable character - a loner and obsessive who prefers male company - there are probably gyms up and down the country when they can be found - if one wanted to look. And that is the point about Bond, Ian Fleming's Bond. Of course he was skilled in the arts of killing, maiming and disabling but he was also a bon viveur, womaniser and charmer not a workaholic and S&M obsessive. Fleming's Bond would be a fascinating drinking companion - Craig's Bond is the morose geezer at the end of the bar staring into his drink.

So what does that leave? - just chases, violence and spectacle. These then are left to carry the film but they do that pretty well - some of the fight scenes are the most accomplished I've ever seen - maintaining continuity of action as Bond plus opponent (cant remember who) plunge through a glass dome and fight like cats as they tumble down scaffolding, which itself takes a tumble for example. But the editing in the opening car chase scarcely makes sense even when viewed at 1/8th speed - it is not the speed of editing (a single frame can register) but that one section cuts to the next without including a significant image which explains and connects to the next sequence. While it's not good to be banged over the head with significant elements of the plot in case one might miss it, the opposite is the case here. Accounting for a score of 7 for this plot-less extravaganza are some welcome additions: a German opera house performance - and Bond's ace handling of a beat up DC3 aircraft.

Perhaps the best scenes of human interaction are between M and Bond giving Dame Judy a better role. Bond seems to be steadily becoming more insubordinate and imagining that he knows better than her. For the next in the series she's going to have to deal with this - perhaps give him a chance at the wheel. While she's about it she should sack the composer and performer of the title music and get something better. Oh, and get Bond to lighten up a little.
5/10
Zzzz...
The_Wade13 January 2009
When I first heard Marc Forster would direct the latest Bond film, I was delighted. It seemed as though the studio was continuing Bond's fresh new direction in that drama and character take precedent over ridiculous action. In Casino Royale, all of the action sequences are realistic and essential to the story. Quantum of solace, on the other hand, is mindless action with little story tacked on as an afterthought.

But what hurts this movie the most is that the action sequences, while mostly pointless to the story, are poorly done. Too much editing and fast cutting, it is quite difficult to follow. It's as if the film makers were attempting to mimic a Bourne film. If this is where the studio wants to take Bond, they should hire Paul Greengrass, for he knows how to throw a camera around like nobody's business and still create cohesive action sequences.
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mediocre, spoiled brat
icytime3 September 2020
Bond has no charm despite the film referencing it often. Instead, he acts as a spoiled child, disobeying his bosses, galavanting across thr world, refusing to stay at unclean hotels for fancy ones, and getting a woman to sleep with him with no work or effort just a request. The cgi is Apparent and while the action scenes are abundant, the videography is bad: they choose to use lots of Zoomed in shots, rapid jump cuts, shaky camera, it is hard to keep up with whats goingon. Plus, the plot is convoluted
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't watch this flick. Go watch Casino Royale again instead
geophyrd24 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Its not that this is just a retread of Casino Royale. Far from it, Casino was a really good movie, and an excellent James Bond movie. Quantum of Solace was pretty awful by any standards. I don't understand how it got a 7.2 rating scale, but then again, that same voting public kept Fantasy Island on TV for 9 years.

Note: In my humble opinion, the action scenes were filmed before there was a script and everything else added later in post. Wow...way to burn the great deal of goodwill engendered from the last movie.

Spoiler Alert! This means YOU! After a fantastic setup, really from the last movie, where a top top top secret organization (which is so secret as to be totally unknown to the British Secret Service) has devised a scheme so intricately ridiculous that no one can possibly imagine it to be true. Literally, the entire purpose to this organization is....(wait for it) to become a water company.

Yep, that's it. They kill, maim, bribe, cajole, torture their way through an entire movie. Listen, Marc Forster....even Long Island Water doesn't want to be water company.
6/10
Bond NO! - Bond YES!
jayjaycee10 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Quantum of Solace" is a 2008 action thriller directed by Marc Forster starring Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko. It has been a hard week for Bond fans all over the world as the highly anticipated conclusion "No Time To Die" was delayed, but even though the final film of this saga was postponed to November, my brother and I decided to still keep on watching the previous films and will conclude this project in fall then. Til then we're gonna have some fun with them. Well, in the cases of the first sequel it's a slightly different business concerning enjoyment and quality. While the predecessor was an ingenious and well executed balance act between heart racing action sequences and packing thriller elements this one appears to just be the shadow of it. Too much in this feels uncomfortably poorly conceived and it resulted in a single mess. Over seventy percent of the film's criminally short run time consist of fast paced action scenes and chase sequences with too many explosions. At times it felt like I was watching Michael Bay's attempt of staging a story about the MI6 agent. It literally appeared they have taken one of the two cores of "Casino Royale" and tried to stretch it and make a whole movie out of it - while letting out the atmospheric thriller aspect. But it's not the only flaw the film suffers from: The script is also a dull and lazy mess of a plot. Most of the character decisions are utterly stupid and most of them are made by Bond himself and I couldn't recognise his character anymore. While he was cool, smart and always seemed to have had a Plan B before, he's shown a totally different behaviour here. Most of the actions were extremely stupid and made no sense considering he's a spy with a mission. He killed way too many people he was supposed to interrogate and threw himself in countless situations that should have cost his life, but he still managed to get out of them. You think because he has had all of it planned out? Well, no. He mostly was extremely lucky and somehow had to deal with even more stupid henchmen. It's nothing about calculation and keeping a cool head, he literally dived into every situation and could barely keep his head above water. It was almost hilarious and made me think that James's favourite hobby is to freak out M in any possible way and make all of his employers hate him. You can literally summarize all the scenes with "Bond No! - Bond Yes!" and I think that already says it all. It's not even better that the film attempts to be self aware of his behaviour, because it just isn't a comedy. Aside from this, the side characters introduced in here are characters I couldn't care less about. Camille was as shallow as the water at the beach of Haiti and Dominic Greene was a laughingstock compared to Le Chiffre. Having both of them as replacements and successors of Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen respectively was a huge disappointment and an extreme downgrade. Even a reappearance of Mathis couldn't save it all. Wasn't the whole film supposed to be about the titular secret organisation "Quantum" in the first place? Funnily enough, I still didn't fully understand what it is all about. I did get that the organisation's purpose is e.g. to grant warlords the power to take over their countries, in this case in Bolivia, in exchange for oil and water. But where did it come from? Who founded it? Why didn't any of the secret intelligence agencies know about it? To me, it sounded like an extreme threat in the beginning, but in the end it appears to be nothing but a small gang of a French philanthropist who was smart enough to make deals with stereotypical Americans that crave for oil and profit. It's getting even funnier, cause after the final showdown Bond himself says that he finally knows what Quantum is. Why does the main character know the truth but I don't? Will it be dealt with in the sequels? Cause I sat there and had to laugh, because the so called secret organisation was anything but totally uncovered to me. Next to this, the final conclusion is one of the most untypical sequences in this film and only shows action again. Where's the intriguing thriller? There's only shooting and explosions, nothing more and all about revenge and not about a mission. All in all, this film is a messy and less lavishly elaborated copy of it's predecessor that counts on high speed action instead of being a thriller and consists of too much mindless behaviour and character decisions. It's an absolute downgrade and even though it's a decent fun, didn't leave any impact on me and is absolutely forgettable nevertheless. I only hope "Skyfall" will fly up again, cause this enactment is just a mess.
3/10
Another Die Another Day
clivey64 November 2008
I suppose if I were looking for omens, the opening shot of QoS should have warned me - a sweeping overwater shot of Lake Como, not dissimilar to the start of Connery's much- maligned comeback picture Never Say Never Again and very much a visual cliché. But that's to tell a lie; the shot is wonderful and ominous and the way it cuts to a real bone-cruncher of a car chase that out Bonds Bourne all the way is excellent, I loved the glimpses you got of the town as it descends into a quarry, then steering past the cranes reminiscent of the car chase in Dr No, and watching one car smash sideways of the cliff, superb.

You'll need to sit further back if you want to enjoy it though, due to the frantic editing and close-ups, too fast for the eye to register.

It's after the credits the rot sets in with some WTF moments... I won't do spoilers, but within 20 minutes I'd seen enough oddities and incongruities, including a Bourne-style foot chase which was okay but including some odd 'let's paste it in later' CGI. Now the look of QoS is superb, the cinematography is lush and as lovely as that of Roger Moore's Moonraker nearly 30 years ago. However, it does have some bad similarities with Moonraker that are no good for Craig's Bond. 007 (though he never seems to be called that in the film) just seems to swan off to foreign climes on the flimsiest pretext all by himself; there's never any sense he has any back up from MI6; there don't seem to be any other 00 agents at all. It's a very egocentric film in that sense, and that may be the point, but Craig's Bond is much of a superhero as Moore, only substituting brawn for gadgets to get out of every situation.

At times, it reminded me of a mid-70s Pink Panther film, the way the plot moves from one scene to another. Oh! He's bumped into a lady by accident, who mistakes him for another.

Insipid Bond villain with a henchmen like Gareth out of The Office, dull, grumpy Bond girl, and M popping up every other scene ('It's Dame Judi - we have to make use of her!').

An excellent scene at the opera in Austria is a highlight, and very Hitchcockian.

But soon Quantum of Solace put me in mind of Never Say Never Again and Die Another Day, two that just don't feel like Bond movies to me. There's a plane sequence that really is a CGI fest right out of Pierce Brosnan's last film and totally out of keeping with the new down-to- earth Bond that Craig is meant to exemplify.

There's also a tragic death scene impaired by some truly vulgar and obvious product placement. Yes, Bond wears Omega. We get it!

I had reservations about director Marc Forster but really, his hiring is like getting Sebastian Faulk in for Devil May Care. Yes, he sets up every shot expertly and it looks lovely. But there's no experience of the genre and it shows. I began to realise that despite the change of personnel, it's the writers and producers who sink it every time for me. I can't say I was too disappointed with the film this time, I've been here so often before, as with Die Another Day.

Craig? He looks more like Fleming's Bond here. Yet even CR fans will admit that the best part of that film: the bankrupt Le Chiffre at cards thing, gaining the 00, the relationship with Vesper and her death, are all Fleming. Had that not been in the novel, the producers would never have had the nerve/imagination to do all that stuff for their reboot. Take those elements out and you get a series of action scenes in Madagascar, Miami Airport and Venice. Which is sort of QoS to a tee.

It's amazing how I can tune into Spooks every week, and it's great stuff that I can nitpick slightly I admit, but generally I get along with. The villains are great, you hate them, you root for the heroes who sometimes cross the line morally but never talk about torture in such a commonplace way as MI6 do here, plus some great touches; "Being happy isn't about getting what you want, it's about appreciating what you've got" last week. But the producers of Bond are bereft of any nouse at all. What is this film? A tribute to past Bond movies, to the franchise, a merchandising opportunity, a chance to be patriotic? A marketing exercise?

Sorry to be a downer, I really thought I would chalk this up as the best action film of the year even if not my thing as a Bond flick - better than TDK, easily Indy IV and possibly Iron Man. For me, Jack White and Alicia Keys should have called their song Another Die Another Day.
10/10
Z 007 lander
qormi16 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, Daniel Craig totally ripped off Ben Stiller's "Zoolander" "Blue Steel" pose. Yes, his mouth is permanently affixed to this pose, but it works. Craig is a dark, brooding Bond who is edgy and dangerous. You can get killed playing checkers with this guy.

The production values of this film put all other James Bond movies to shame (except Casino Royale). The sets are gritty and go places all the other Bond movies could never take you: that is, true, scary realism. The action sequences are scary and breathtaking. The plot moves along very quickly and you have to pay attention or its subtleties will pass you by. The characters are realistic - no "Jaws" here. Great, action-packed film. James Bond without gadgets? Yeah, just a lot of grit and sweat. The fight scenes are fast-paced, violent, and well-choreographed. It feels like you're witnessing a real fight.

This "Bond" has top-notch production values right up there with Oscar-winning movies. In fact, it should have gotten nominated. Craig carries the film and he's just as cool as McQueen - despite the "Blue Steel" affliction.
6/10
The Garden Spot of Bolivia
ferguson-615 November 2008
Greetings again from the darkness. After "Casino Royale", the re-birth of the Bond franchise, I have been extremely anxious for the first Bond sequel. Now after seeing it, I can only hope that the next installment will bring an entirely new approach than what director Marc Forster has delivered. This is little more than an all-out action movie with some moments of meandering tossed in. Of course, the wrapping is pure Bond ... car chase, fights, babes, tuxedos, multiple locations, etc. But the let down is immense.

On the bright side, Daniel Craig proves again that his casting was terrific. Next time, he just needs more to work with. I believe Judi Dench as M has more lines of dialogue than D Craig. In a normal film, that would not be unusual ... she is a terrific actress. But this is James Bond - where are the quips and double entendres? Mathieu Amalric was truly amazing in "The Diving Bell and Butterfly". Here he proves to be among the weakest of all Bond villains. What a waste. What happened to world domination? Now the prize is the water supply in Bolivia? Why Bolivia? Didn't they learn anything from Butch and Sundance? Olga Kurylenko (a famous model) and Gemma Atherton are our Bond girls. The stunning Kurylenko is so miscast that I laughed on more than a couple of occasions. At least Ms. Atherton has a real Bond girl name ... Strawberry Fields (though we only hear her referred to as "Fields").

Supporting cast is strong with return performances by Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini and Jesper Christensen (Mr White). Also of note is Charlie Chaplin's granddaughter Oona Chaplin, who has a brief role as a receptionist. There is also a nice tribute to "Goldfinger" with a shot of Fields on the bed.

Director Forster is building a remarkable resume with the likes of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", "Stranger Than Fiction" and "Kite Runner". What he doesn't have is a feel for action. The close-ups and rapid fire editing are just atrocious. See the Bourne movies or the two most recent Batman films for much better action. And where is the stunning SCENERY? Parts of "Casino Royale" were right out of a travel guide. This film is bleak in each of the many locations.

Two last things: is there a POINT to the opening car chase scene?; and why (in movies) do so few people every actually get shot with automatic weaponry, but Clint Eastwood can put out a cigarette from 50 yds with a 357 magnum? The film grades out low as an action film and even lower as a Bond film. The class of Craig and Dench prevent it from being a major flop but here's hoping the next installment is turned over to someone with an appreciation of what the Bond series has meant.
4/10
Destroying Bond's legacy
dasa10820 October 2021
The big problem with the film is a huge number of situations that conspire against the integrity of the character. Here we have a vindictive Bond (like Timothy Dalton) acting against an amateur MI6 leadership who makes unintelligent decisions while the CIA seems to be doing no better. We are introduced to a French villain who under the name of ecology has the ability to depose presidents and win fortunes, there is another villain who is a Bolivian military man who speaks Mexican and a couple of bad guys who add little to the matter. On the female side there are two or three nice girls but the casting is fatal. A Ukrainian should not be chosen for the role of a Bolivian and that when she speaks Spanish she does it in an awful way. No Bolivian speaks like in that country. The story is futile and without any hitch. Bond's emotions turn him into a Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible or a Jason Bourne. This movie has too many reasons to be considered the worst in the entire series. If it weren't for certain virtuosity of the director, I could say that it is a candidate to be garbage.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum of Solace
jboothmillard8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale was a fantastic reboot to the James Bond 007 series, with the new leading actor establishing the role perfectly, so a follow-up was highly anticipated, from writer Paul Haggis (Crash) and director Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, World War Z). Basically, it picks up directly after the end of the previous film, where James Bond (Daniel Craig), seeking revenge for the death of his lover Vesper Lynd, has captured Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), after evading pursuers Bond and M (Dame Judi Dench) interrogate him regarding his organisation. M's bodyguard Craig Mitchell (Glenn Foster), a double agent, helps White to escape, Mitchell is killed by Bond, searching his apartment they find he had a contact in Haiti, Edmund Slate (Neil Jackson), so Bond tracks him. Slate is a hit-man sent to kill Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), hired by her lover environmentalist Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's Mathieu Amalric), who Bonds finds out is helping exiled Bolivian General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) to overthrow his government and become president, in exchange for a seemingly barren piece of desert, the General murdered Camille's family. After rescuing Camille, Bond follows Greene and associates to an opera in Bregenz, Austria, a deal is struck between Greene and South American section CIA head Gregg Beam (David Harbour) to maintain access to assumed stocks of Bolivian oil, Bond discovers the organisation's name is Quantum, and the identities of the executive board are identified by M's aide Bill Tanner (Rory Kinnear). A Special Branch bodyguard working for adviser to the British Prime Minister, Guy Haines (Paul Ritter), fights with Bond, and is afterwards killed by Greene's men, M assumes Bond killed him, he refuses to return and debrief, so his passports and credit cards are revoked. Bond meets with his old ally René Mathis (Hannibal's Giancarlo Giannini) in Italy and convinces him to join him in La Paz, Bolivia, there they are met MI6 officer Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) who is ordered to have him return to the UK, but he seduces her, before attending a fundraising party attended by Greene, there Bond again rescues Camille, in a struggle Mathis is attacked, and Bond is framed for his death. The following day Bond and Camille fly a plane over the intended land acquisition of Quantum, the plane is shot down and the two end up skydiving and landing in a sinkhole, in the cave they discover Quantum is damming Bolivia's supply of fresh water for control of commodity. Bond returns to La Paz and meets M, he learns Fields was murdered by Quantum, drowning her in crude oil, M orders Bond arrested for disobeying orders, but he escapes and quickly returns to M to convince her that she can trust him. Bond meets CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), he tells him that Greene and Medrano will finalise the coup in a meeting in the Atacama Desert, the CIA's Special Activities Division attempt to kill Bond, but he escapes, at the meeting in an eco hotel Greene reveals his real plan to Medrano, to accept a contract to make Greene's water utility company the sole supplier, for significantly higher rates. Bond infiltrates the hotel, kills the Colonel of Police (Fernando Guillén Cuervo) for betraying Mathis, Camille kills Medrano, avenging the death of his parents and sister, the hotel is destroyed by fire, and Bond captures Greene, interrogating him about Quantum, before leaving him stranded in the desert, with only a can of engine oil. Bond and Camille kiss before parting, Bond meets Vesper's former lover, Quantum member Yusef Kabira (Simon Kassianides), in Kazan, Russia, he seduces women with valuable connections, his latest target is a Canadian Intelligence agent, Bond tells her this, but he spares his life and lets MI6 arrest him. In the end M tells Bond that Greene was found shot dead in the middle of the desert, with engine oil in his stomach, Bond denies knowing anything, she also tells that Leiter has been promoted, Bond is reinstated as an agent, he tells that he never left, finally he drops Vesper's necklace in the snow. Also starring Tim Pigott-Smith as Foreign Secretary, Stana Katic as Corrine, Oona Chaplin as Perla de las Dunas Receptionist, Miranda's Sarah Hadland as Ocean Sky Receptionist and Michael G. Wilson as Man Sitting in Chair in Haitian Hotel Lobby. It should be mentioned that the nonsensical title is taken from one of the short stories by Ian Fleming, and also there was a writer's strike at the time of the making of the film, which does explain it feeling slightly rushed at times. Craig is still committed in the role of Bond, Dench is terrific support, Kurylenko is feisty enough, Arterton is alright, and Amalric is unmemorable as the villain with no facial or bodily abnormalities. The spy going rogue stuff works well, the action and chase sequences are exciting, and Craig's performance certainly keeps the pace going, things pick up in the next movie, this is a reasonable spy adventure. James Bond was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, and he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Good!
7/10
Darker and darker
swissmanager7 November 2008
Not a bad film, but not brilliant either - far from it. Rather than compare it to Casino Royale which was different, and, in my opinion, weaker than many of the previous Bond films over the years, it does act as a logical sequel. The darkness that was portrayed in Casino was deepened in this film.

Daniel Craig lacks the class, charm, wit and, on screen intelligence, of previous Bonds. He is very good but would be more suited in the role of a modern Harry Palmer than a true-blood Bond. The film is too dark for a Bond film. Too much needless running around, violence and killing without any intrigue, mystery, humour or other assets that previous Bond films had that made them so entertaining. The supporting cast seemed in a second division from other Bond classics, the plot weak at best.

One comes away from the theatre thinking that it was a way to pass two hours of one's time but without any experiencing actual joy, thrills or memories.
2/10
Bond is Dead
mjones197216 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am thoroughly disappointed by the way they are "re-making" James Bond. It's been a successful franchise for 2 generations +, but it's over now. They've strayed from the formula, and now it's just another action movie, indistinguishable from the others.

There's no Q, Moneypenny, gadgets. He's not really even sophisticated any more, just a secret agent with a chip on his shoulder. I don't mind him having a harder edge, that's what I liked about "Die Another Day," where he went rogue for a while seeking revenge, against M's will.

But the sophistication is now gone. It's not the actor's fault, either. I couldn't care less if Bond is blonde or not, the script is just "Bourne," not "Bond." The producers should not be allowed to continue churning out this garbage.

Don't waste your money on this, thinking you're going to see "Bond, James Bond" 007 "shaken, not stirred." He is apparently no more.
9/10
Fine thriller
Cristi_Ciopron13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Craig is undoubtedly the best Bond ever—looking viciously mean, violent, harsh, extremely tough, a brutal killing—machine—and his performance is understated, sober. He does not strive to fill more space than the role as written affords him. As for Bond in QUANTUM …,is he strictly a functional character, a stock character, a masque? Or does he seem smaller, because he's deflated? Not at all. Craig's Bond in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is as developed as fits an action movie. Bond has the size ,the fictional size he ought to. He's an action movie character of the right size—a physical role well made.

It was Craig who converted me to the franchise—Craig, following in the footsteps of the early ,'60s installments. What is taken over from the delightful early '60s movies is the atmosphere, the uncanny and eerie feel.

Four things—Craig is excellent, the best choice for this role ever;--fortunately the comical things were dropped, no more jokes;--QUANTUM OF SOLACE resembles some of the early '60s Bonds by the weird, uncanny feel and atmosphere;-- Dominic Green is an awesome villain;--the girls were so—so;--the Craig sub—franchise is more Bourne than 'Bond';it's practically a new thing, a brand new franchise, enormously better than the previous one ,a sensational, suspenseful realist thriller more like Bourne.

I understand why this Craig franchise does not appeal to the Bond devotees; not only is Craig unlike Brosnan; he's also too unlike Connery as well. Craig is the decided negation of Connery—dropped are the suavity side, the irony, the gadgets, the comic books adventure, the chic eroticism—this is Bourne plus some Ripley—Craig's James is a beast, a violent threatening killing machine. Hopefully, this improvement is for good, the ancient Bond is abolished (not only in its decadent minor Brosnan avatar, but in the original prototypical Connery form as well …).

As a physical note, Craig is a very sexy and handsome man. His facial features, the carved lines of his face are the role—are Bond.

Dominic Greene, Medrano are convincing prosaic heinous villains. They're not fancy villains, but realistically corrupt people.

QUANTUM … is one of the best thrillers, independently of its place and significance within the franchise. It's an independent thriller, not a piece of legendary, a follow—up.
5/10
A massive disappointment...
yocca_987 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have just returned from a screening of Quantum of Solace and am struck by how it left me completely cold. Bored is one thing I never thought I could feel in a Bond film. Casino Royale was a brilliant addition to the Bond canon - it had the vintage feel of a classic Bond film, a newly-defined Bond with a Flemingesque ruthlessness and gimlet eyes, a very fine villain in Mads Mikkelson, and a great script written with the aid of the award-winning screenwriter to Crash.

The screenwriters to Quantum seem to have done an about face. We are left with the Brosnan antics of Die Another Day - preposterous stunts, back-to-back action with little development of plot or character, little time for any chemistry between Bond and the female lead, a denouement in a villain's lair in the desert with all the ludicrousness of a Roger Moore instalment. And that makes sense, because the screenwriters for this film are the same ones as worked on the Brosnan franchise.

Something didn't square at all, and I think a large factor is the script. We don't need camp humour or biting one-liners, but we do need dialogue. The showdown between Bond and Dominic Greene required some kind of conflict, after all right from the beginning of Casino we have been led towards this climax between these two men, and yet Marc Foster had given is nothing in the screenplay to suggest that these two men had a developed hatred of one another.

Mathieu Almaric cuts a puny villain, and his henchmen are all puny henchmen. Gone is Grant or Oddjob or Rosa Klebb or Nick-Nack or Tee-Hee. Greene's henchman, who is called Elvis in the credits, but is never referred to by name in the film, wears a toupee and is weedy and ineffectual. There is no drama at all between him and Greene. You can't fault Almaric as a villain because he has absolutely nothing to work with. The demented turn Greene takes with an axe at the film's close is perhaps really Almaric venting his frustration out on the flat character he has been given.

The theme song was appalling. I can't recall a truly evocative Bond song since the days when John Barry composed the score, but this one really was the pits.

It may be that the thirty minutes of commercials (a lot of them playstation combat or apocalyptic games) before the film commenced had already numbed me for Bond, but in any case the action was sheer overkill. Back-to-back Bond in a car, Bond on a rooftop, Bond in a boat, Bond in a plane, and then I finally realised that it could just as well be any action hero as Bond. The camera never allowed you to settle on Craig in action, the viewer is just roughly manhandled from scene to scene, from one roller-coaster to the next. Whole sequences, as others have said, were lifted straight out of the Bourne franchise - the opening car chase like bumper cars, the naturalistic close combat with a double agent in a Haitian apartment, the epilogue in a snow swept Russia that ties up all the loose ends (the epilogue to The Bourne Supremacy anyone? also set in a snow swept Russia, tying up loose plot-threads).

Finally, the dastardly plot. Just what is it? Greene is hoarding vast reserves of water in the Bolivian desert to do what? Sell it for extortionate prices to Bolivian farmers? I may be wrong, but Bolivia last time I checked was a small South American nation with a negligible GNP and a people who had suffered under one lousy regime after another. If Greene really wanted a plot for global domination, he should monopolise the oil industry and hoard it so that consumers all over the world have to pay extortionate prices at the pump. Now we all know that is a plot that can work.

All this is a crushing pity, because, for my money, Craig could just possibly be the best Bond we've had (and I know this may ring like blasphemy to Conneryphiles). A blunt instrument is what he is, just like Fleming's Bond.

Sorry about the rant, but someone needed to give this film a rundown. Anyway, definitely enough said.
4/10
No script and a lot of noise
kim-215-30661225 November 2019
And lot actionscenes and no real plot. James Bond is not 007 in this movie. He is just any random actionhero which beat up people for the sake of an actionscene.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum Of Solace
alexx66820 November 2008
The new James Bond has it's pros and cons. On the pros side, Bond has never been so down to earth as in "Quantum Of Solace". This is the most political Bond yet, and dangerously political at that, what with the CIA co-operating with third-world dictators, criminal rings disguised as non-governmental organizations, profoundly cynical (almost nihilist) bureaus and so on.

On the cons side, this is the less charming Bond yet. Is this even really Bond? There's no humour, no larger-than-life attitude, no exoticism, no goofy megalomaniac villains with zany plots to take over the world, no gadgets, no post-modern retro-futuristic settings etc.

In other words, this is a complete departure from all Bond trademarks.

But what kind of departure? Judged purely on it's filmic qualities, this is just a generic 00's action flick, set hot on the heels of "Mission Impossible" and "The Bourne Identity". Daniel Craig is OK and rather a return to the style of Sean Connery (whereas Pierce Brosnan was a dead-ringer for Roger Moore) but the new direction for Bond seems wrong. What is needed is a revamp similar to the one that went on in the 70's when Moore took over.

James Bond was always about style and "Quantum Of Solace" has very little, if any, style.
4/10
Not the Best Bond Film
stephenhole88 March 2009
This is the first Bond Film That I really did not like. The action was OK, but for me it just never really got going. The story line was very small, and I feel just did not have that Ian Fleming touch. I will not give away the end, as I have no idea how it ended, and was expecting the film to move on to the next bit, but then up came the credits. I really just did not understand what was going on for a good proportion of the film. I have all the other 007 films on DVD, and love every one of them. But unless I can get this one at a bargain basement price, I'm sorry to say I will not be spending good money on such a disappointing outing for the Bond franchise.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not darker: just action, action and more great action
harry_tk_yung7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When people started to compare "Bond Begins" (i.e. Daniel Craig's "Casino Royale") to "Batman Begins", it's inevitable that they will compare also the sequels ("The Dark Knight" and "Quantum of Solace"). Indeed the reinvented fictional icons start with a striking similarity: the dark side of the hero. But contrary to what you might have heard from some people, the respective sequels head towards exact opposite directions. Batman becomes even darker, but Bond does not. Instead of going into deeper layers of the reborn Bond, the movie makers pulls him back a little towards the predecessor Bonds, an icon hero designed to deliver the thrills and action. And that is not a bad thing if sheer entertainment is what you are looking for.

Yes, this new Bond seeks revenge. Yes, this new Bond kills without blinking. But all this is quite superficial and nowhere near to the agonizing character split that we see in Batman in "The Dark knight". While there is even a dual revenge plot (for both Bond and Camille, the "Bond girl" in this episode) it serves only as an anchor for action to piled upon action, unfolding on ground (all kinds of venue), in water and in air. Not only are these action scene designed and executed with high calibre, but they are also rich in cinematic context. The opening chase scene alone references movie classics from "Crouching tiger…", "Vertigo" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".

Consistent with "Casino Royale" is a James Bond that is unrecognizable from the gentleman that fans are familiar with, gentleman even at perilous action scenes. Daniel Graig brings to the screen a gritty, earthy hero that is all blood, sweat and dirt in the action scenes. Not everybody likes what he is doing but it is difficult to deny him the credit of doing an admirable job. Top-notch French star Mathieu Amalric (best known for "The diving bell and the butterfly" but also superb in "Kings and queen") is cast as the chief villain. I wouldn't even say that this is a waste of talents because this seems to be a popular thing to do with block-busters (remember Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI3?) - just good business. Jeffery Wright reprising his role as US agent Felix Leiter from "Casino Royale" comes close to being a cameo appearance, but makes his presence noted whenever he appears, hallmark of an actor of his calibre. Olga Kurylenko, the "Bond girl" in this edition, is does not suffer in comparison with some of the bigger names than came in the previous 21 Bond movies. She offers a unique combination of youthful, spirited defiance and world-wearied, melancholy sadness.

Don't look for a psychological enigma as you would in the new Batman, or you'll be disappointed. Look for the traditionally entertaining Bond flick (albeit with a somewhat different flavour) and you will likely enjoy the ride.
3/10
Not a James Bond Movie
marcobiggio-121 June 2009
This is a James Bond movie in name only. The action makes up for a boring plot and simplistic storyline. Other than that the writing is terrible. The plot is basically Bond is trying to stop a multinational corporation & its ruthless president from controlling the world's energy resources.

The opening sequence has a good car chase and there are the usual explosions and gun fights, but even in the action something is lacking. Daniel Craig could make a great James Bond, but instead of being charming and witty like he's supposed to be the writers make him brooding and sarcastic. The snippy dialogue between him & M gets on your nerves after a while too. Other than the action & M there are no trademarks of a Bond film such as interesting and vicious villains such as Jaws. There is a beautiful woman but no flirtation or sex like the Bond films. The writing here doesn't do the Bond franchise justice.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Superb Bond movie
ghatbkk7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In some ways, this movie is better than Casino Royale.

If you like Bond because of the movies. If you really enjoy the Roger Moore Bond, than you probably won't like this Bond.

If you like Bond because of the books, I think you will enjoy this Bond very much.

This is a spy movie, not just a thriller. There are clues and misdirection. If you don't pay attention, you won't get the subtleties. If you do, the subtleties can make the movie very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Every character is essential and has a role, information that you can gather from them. And the game isn't over when the movie ends (if you think it through, you'll know that it can't be).

The bad guys aren't threatening. They are worse. If you really pay attention and figure out their goals, they are a lot worse.

This is a movie that will be worth seeing more than once... and as people see it again, how they value it will grow. It's not for mindless entertainment (although there is plenty of that too). To get the most out of it, you have to think and not be deterred by the misdirection.
6/10
Back to action and convoluted plot
SnoopyStyle29 November 2013
James Bond (Daniel Craig) tries to unravel what happened to Vesper, and discovers a vast mysterious worldwide organization. M (Judi Dench) is attacked, and Bond discovers a dastardly plan by wealthy Dominic Greene.

This starts with an incredible action car chase, and the action keeps coming. It's intermittently interrupted by plot points which serves to be just excuses for more action. The first third has very little plot except to tell the audience that there is an evil worldwide organization. It is all action.

When the bad guy is revealed, he's played by the creepy looking Mathieu Amalric. It has a lot of convoluted twists and turns. The evil plan is rather underwhelming. I am not so impressed with it. The avenging of Vesper also leaves a little to be desired. I do wish for a more concise story.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not As Good As Casino Royale, but it IS Bond
dobbin-425 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lots of people are saying Quantom Of Solace should not be counted as a James Bond film and is more like the Matt Damon trilogy (In a couple of years Quadrilogy). Admittedly while this film is very different to the bonds we have seen in Bonds 46 year movie life this is still Bond and a good one at that.

Daniel Craig returns again in this direct sequel to Casino Royale that I have heard takes place about 20 minutes after the first one. When watching the start car chase scene I must admit the car chase scene was much like a Bourne scene, but luckily the shaking of the camera ended after that scene.

As for the performances of all the actors James Bond is again awesome as James Bond and he really plays him with a confidence not seen since the days of Sean Connery, Judi French also plays her role well as M who tries and fails to stop Bond from wrecking everything in his path in this film. As for the new Bond girl it was a major letdown compared to the Bond Girl in the first one but she still played her part well and did all she needed.

For the storyline everyone must of thought when they found out about it that it was very different from the other 21 James Bond films where, and I think that it was an experiment that needed trying. If they did not try to shake up the Bond films at least a little it would get repetitive. And they have been doing this since Dr. No in 1962 they changed it up a little so it would not boring and while this is a bigger jump I will reinstate my previous comment and say it needed to be done.

My only complaint for the movie (And it is not a big deal) is the red aired agent that appeared for like 3 minutes and did not really have much to do with the plot except at one stage she trips the bad guy (Not in an action scene) and sleeps with Bond.

Overall, this is another good edition to the Bond series and I cant wait to see what they come up with for Bond 23 which is meant to come out 2010. I rate this film 73% for being very enjoyable.
4/10
The name's not Bond...
mlunsworth1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, so here's what I heard about this film before I went to see it - it's not your average James Bond film, the directing is all messed up, and there's no real story.

If I'm honest, I was more disappointed than happy with this film. For a start, why have they moved the opening gun barrel sequence to the end? It would have been perfectly fine at the beginning of the film like the previous 21 Bond movies. I was also annoyed at the continuous action scenes, dismal running length and the Bond Song. And Bond doesn't even have time to say his name's Bond, James Bond. The action sequences are cut quickly, with fast paced editing, and reminded me more of a Jason Bourne film than a Bond movie, but credit has to be given to Craig for doing most of the stunt work.

QoS lacks the gadgets, Bond's car, the suspense, and most importantly, the Bond theme music itself. It even leaves out Q and Moneypenny.

Out of the negative sides, there is also a brief positive side to the film - Daniel Craig is amazing as Bond, and I hope to see him in at least two more films. If you're watching this just for the action, then you're in for a treat. The ending location at the hotel is also a reminder of the traditional Bond hideouts from the early days. Other than that, the film did nothing for me.

Overall, director Marc Forster has made a right mess of the film, and I'm sorry to say this, but even Die Another Day was better than this so called 'Bond' film. Any fans wanting to see the film, be aware; you'll generally be in for a shock.

Let's hope Bond 23 goes back to the originality territory.
5/10
Not Bond
mklmjdrake29 March 2009
The film is OK but it is NOT Bond. Where's the gun barrel opening? Where's the Monty Norman theme (rarely heard)? And Daniel Craig is not the looker that Bond is supposed to be. The character he creates on screen is too angry, the mood is too dark, and the music is all wrong. If I try and rate this movie as a stand alone film, I would rate it higher. But as a Bond film, it is way off. The director does not capture the spirit of the character that Ian Fleming created.

The Q branch does not exist in the film. And in this day of high-tech gadgetry? Moneypenny is gone. Bond is just as dark as the villain. It seems as though he's on a constant vendetta - but with a serious chip on his shoulder. He doesn't care about anything or anyone (remember, Bond did marry). And since when does Bond get all bloody? He's supposed to get the bad guy, get the girl, brush off his tux and save the world all over again. That's why I go to see Bond! It's a great recipe; why mess with it?
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond movie? Really?
diana_diogo6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, so here's the deal: The truth is that the plots of Bond movies are not as they used to be! There were always weird evil plans to destroy or conquer the earth!James Bond had funny gadgets, never got to get extremely tired or beaten, he had sense of humor all the time and he always got the girl(s). That was the "thing" about 007 movies. Now things aren't like that. They became action movies. There are too many of those already to make Bond movies look just an average action movie. The man is not supposed to be John McClane (the guy from die hard for those who don't know). The movie starts with a way to fast to follow car chase, and it quickly shifts to the theme song (sucks BTW) without the typical frame where you see the barrel of a gun following 007 and he shoots the guy and then the song starts. There's some kind of bad guy who's plan is to steel the water from a poor country only to exploit them later. This isn't actually a bad idea. But it's just not written right. It's a story without a storyline. It's terrible. James Bond doesn't even drink martinis (shaken, not stirred) anymore for God sake! He drinks something made out of 3 parts of Gin, 1 of vodka and a long thin band of peeled lemon!! THAT'S JUST NOT JAMES BOND!! What are you thinking Mark Forster, Paul Hagis and Neil Purvis? Are you seriously trying to kill the 007 franchise? It's not Daniel Craig's fault. He acts what he reads, and what he reads isn't good enough. But as much as I like him, he looks more like a bouncer than a gentleman/secret agent... Sorry Daniel... But still, I don't think that it's his fault because he's told to act like that, no smiles, no jokes, no nothing. Sad...
6/10
We've been expecting you Mr Bland.
Red_Flag1 December 2008
Casino Royal was always going to be a hard act to follow, and with a film based upon a short story than nobody had really read, we were all worried about the fate of Quantum of Solace. The end result, while disappointing, doesn't skip on the gritty, nasty full blooded action, paced beautifully. What Quantum fails to do is improve on its predecessor while its without a doubt more action packed none of the action in here rivals that that was in Casino Royal. Its plot is sparse and ankle deep and it doesn't even manage to make bond girl, Olga Kurylenko interesting. Shortlising as one of the worst bond girls ever.

Whats amiss here is a competent director, while decent in his own right what with classics such as "Monsters Ball" and "Stranger than Fiction" under his belt. What he lacks is the ability to competently merge action with drama which I'm sure has many people worried for 2010's "World War Z". What this films gets right, it gets right well. Daniel Craig has never been better, the set pieces are fantastic and the musical score runs smoothly. Ands what's always reassuring with this series is than if you didn't like how the direction was handled in this outing there always hope for the next in the franchise.

A devastating betrayal sends James Bond from Australia to Italy and South America on a mission of vengeance that pits the suave super-spy against a powerful businessman with diabolical intentions.

Betrayed by Vesper, 007 (Daniel Craig) suppresses the urge to make his latest mission personal as he teams with M (Judi Dench) to interrogate Mr. White (Jesper Christensen). It soon becomes apparent that the organization behind the blackmailing of Vesper is more powerful than Bond and M had previously anticipated, and after discovering forensic evidence that links an MI6 traitor to a bank in Haiti, Bond immediately sets out to gather more intelligence.

Another missing element that simply can't help but be compared to Casino Royal is this films bad guy, not only is he not threatening, sinister or a danger to bond at any point but Jesper Christensen fails to worry us at any point. He's disposable and in not league with last year's Le Chifre. And in that lies one of the film's most entertaining fortes. This is unlike Any of the previous bond flicks for one reason, it's the first true sequel. Anybody who hasn't seen Casino Royal will not be able to follow the structured story. And those that have will be grateful for the continuation. This feature and Craig himself manage to keep Quantum of Solace afloat but its dull action and poorly scripted characters that almost has it sinking.

Verdict: A decent if forgettable entry to the 007 franchise that fades from memory the second you've left the theatre but will keep you engaged long enough that it doesn't become tedious. Craig shines while other like Kurylenko and Christensen manage a passable but far from good performance. It won't make anybody top 10 Bond films but it is far from the worst. Were shaken and stirred, for now.
9/10
Not as good as Casino Royale, but still great.
Dillypogo3 November 2008
After the immense critical praise and box-office success of Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is back as James Bond in Quantum of Solace. We follow the super spy about an hour after the events of Casino Royale, in which the love of Bond's life, Vesper Lynd, betrayed him and drowned herself. Bond and M (Judi Dench) interrogate baddie Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), who tells them that there is an organisation of villains which has recruits everywhere, even in MI6. Bond is determined to take down the organisation's leader, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), whilst finding the man who blackmailed Vesper into betraying him.

Daniel Craig is again excellent in the role of 007, just as he was in Casino Royale. In my view, he's the best actor to have played James Bond, with Sean Connery in at a close second. He amazingly captures the gritty and more realistic feel of the two Bond films he has starred in. Olga Kurylenko is this movie's Bond girl, and she's great at portraying the tough, kick-ass woman we're not used to seeing in the Bond franchise. Dominic Greene is played by Mathieu Amalric, who is perfectly cast as the more-brains-than-brawn villain.

Staying very true to its predecessor, Quantum of Solace has many breathtaking action scenes which should get the blood pumping. Even the very first scene is a mesmerising car-chase that triumphantly sets the mood for the rest of the film. My personal favourite action scene is when Bond is chasing a man through the rooftops of Sienna.

In comparison to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace doesn't do as well as I was hoping. It just doesn't match up to the masterpiece that was Casino Royale, although it was very unlikely Quantum of Solace would be as perfect. However, it comes close and keeps the same feel and mood of Casino Royale.

As with any James Bond movie, the beginning titles in Quantum of Solace are very important. I was browsing through Youtube one day when I heard the song "Another Way To Die" by Jack White and Alicia Keys, which is the new Bond theme tune. I had mixed signals about the song: some parts I liked, other parts I didn't, but I was somewhat satisfied with its use in the film. The beginning titles aren't as stunning as I was hoping, but they're good enough.

It may not be as good as the masterpiece Casino Royale, but Quantum of Solace is still a great addition to the Bond franchise. I give it 9/10.
6/10
Critics were too harsh with this movie?
charliep1412 November 2015
Perhaps due to the strong wake up call / reboot generated by Casinio Royale, the stakes were too high for Quantum of Solace. Perhaps it also came too soon after-wards.

It is however not a bad Bond movie or bad action flick at all. Lots of good points to consider: a strong cast. The Bond girl and the villain were in my humble opinion better than their Casino counterparts (evil french always work!).

The cinematography was interesting too: there was a grain and a color palette that almost gave a retro/vintage look to this movie which worked particularly well. Also, strong pacing - also better than Casino Royale where you had a few looong moments.

Overall not a bad flick - it maybe doesn't leave you with a long lasting memory but, re-watch it, it's not bad at all.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Breathless, Fast-Paced Return from 007
TheUnseenMovieLover2 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After watching Quantum of Solace with my dad, I turned to him and said, "What did you think?" And, to my satisfaction and relief, he said, "Actually, it was pretty good". This was the first time that I had ever heard those words come out of my dad's mouth after watching a James Bond movie. The best thing was that Quantum fully deserved this praise.

Before I get started with my actual review of the film, I need to comment on something that has been worrying me. Many of the critics and public reviewers have said that this film lacks the feeling of the old Bond movies. I think that this complaint is a bit out-of-place. Do you want the spirit of the old Bond films? It might be a good idea to stick to the old Bond films. Casino Royale was a re-invention for the series, and provided a clean slate for the franchise. You should go into the cinema expecting changes to the formula. Quantum of Solace is a continuation of this re-invention, and makes some brave and unexpected moves in the process.

Although the initial reception by both critics and public reviewers worried me, it needn't have. Yes, Quantum isn't as good as Casino Royale. But nevertheless, it is a thrilling, action-packed time at the cinema. Combine that with intelligent direction, a terrific script and fantastic performances, and I'm definitely planning on a second viewing.

The film begins with a wallop of a car chase between Bond (Daniel Craig) and sinister bad guys. Lying in the boot of Bond's car is Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), a man who is high up in a shadowy organisation known as Quantum, and who played a large part in the death of Vesper, Bond's love from Casino Royale.

Bond is soon on the trail of Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a fake environmentalist and another member of Quantum, who has plans for a seemingly worthless piece of desert. On his journey, he meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is on a personal vendetta against one of Greene's associates. Together, they team up against Greene, in order to take their revenge.

Quantum's high points are easily the action sequences. Effortlessly choreographed, intense and realistic, they are definitely some of the most gripping set-pieces of the year. Take, for example, the sequence in which Bond pursues a traitorous MI6 agent. The chase moves from the two of them flying through sewers to them dangling from scaffolding, colliding with each other in the air and desperately trying to grasp their guns. This sequence had my arms pinned to my arm-rests. My arms continued to grasp the arm-rests at several points during the movie, but never as tightly as when I was watching this sequence. Another exceptional piece of action is a gunfight which is cleverly contrasted with an ongoing opera performance. I congratulate stunt coordinator Dan Bradley for his top-notch stunt work.

Marc Forster does well in the director's chair. He has never directed a movie with the large scope and scale that Quantum has, but he does a nice job at covering it up. One of the best things that Forster does as director is that while he shows a adept hand at shooting huge action sequences, he doesn't ignore the traits of his earlier films. The art direction and locations are magnificent, and there is a raw, emotional power in Bond's struggle to both take his revenge for Vesper's death and remember his duty as a MI6 agent.

Most of the emotion in Bond's quest is still down to Craig's fiery performance. Brutal, hard-edged and full of damaged humanity, Craig's performance is immensely powerful and utterly commanding. He also has solid support. As Camille, Olga Kurylenko brings life to a passionate, refreshingly independent Bond girl. Her performance matches the high quality of Eva Green's bewitching portrayal of Vesper in Casino Royale. As the bad guy of the piece, Mathieu Amalric manages to be perfectly slimy and menacing, although he isn't as interesting as Casino Royale's Le Chiffre. Also providing a deadly threat is General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), who is a despicable mad man. Judi Dench once again brings steely power to the role of M, Bond's superior, while Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright make welcome returns as two of Bond's associates. Finally, Gemma Arterton is superb in her brief screen time as Agent Fields, who is sent by M to find Bond in the midst of his mission.

The script is once again spot-on. I am a huge fan of Paul Haggis's work, and I wasn't disappointed by the banter that he had cooked up between the characters, along with fellow co-writers Robert Wade and Neil Purvis. The story flows nicely from one point to the other, with a brilliant balance between drama (the death of one of Bond's comrades is a shocking jolt of emotion) and heart-pounding action. There are also some nods to some of the other Bond movies. For example, the fate of one of the main characters is a smart updating of one of the most enduring images from the earlier Bond movies.

No, I'm not saying that Quantum is flawless. There is more than a whiff of Bourne envy in the action sequences, and some characters, such as Agent Fields, are sadly under-used. But still, I will definitely say that it is an deadly piece of entertainment, which moves at an urgent pace and which is all the more intense for it. It doesn't skip on the killer action, yet it doesn't abandon the dramatic power of the story. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is open to change in the Bond franchise. If you are one of the people who can't stand a new vision of what Bond can be on screen, you may want to stick to the older entries in the series.
5/10
No 00 in this Bond !!!
vamplad7919 November 2008
After Casino Royale i think most expectations were high for QOS and mine were no exception. After a more comic book style of Bond with Die Another Day i felt the producers brought Bond back to life in Casino and created one of the most highly regarded and memorable Bond movies in the entire series. With some trepidation i read some reviews before i saw QOS and prepared myself for the worst. This was never going to be as good as Casino but even going in with my eyes wide open i did not expect the mess that was QOS. Without a doubt i agree with any reviewer that has made comment on the direction. Plain and simply...it sucked. To a great degree even the worst Bond films have a Bond stamp on it including majestic locations, rich scenery, dry wit, extended action sequences and direction that is tight but leaves at least one lasting imprint. This film had none of these elements and all due to the direction. sure we had lots of locations but none had any elements of awe besides a few shots here and there of the Mediterranean coastline. Most shots were dull and lifeless. There was no outstanding dialogue leading to no suspense or tension. All action sequence were poorly directed and missed the entire key to Bonds success. Epic action sequences that for the most part don't use tricks of the camera or CGI. All the action scenes ARE poorly edited and as others have commented just to damn reliant on quick cuts to build a frantic pace. I have seen all Bourne films which many compare to the style of action in this film and can say that they are directed way better than this film. I would gladly have put up with a Bourne style movie but this was even worse. simple put the director killed the action sequences in a Bond film by giving no epic stunts and actually SHOWING the scene. He is far to reliant on ultra quick edits that confuse and remove any awe from the scene. The same is with the pace of scenes and story as well. We have what i think is a great story but it is ruined by the poorly directed scenes and moves along too fast to build any tension or mystery. My main criticism of the film and sheer disappointment came soley from the direction. I could nit pick and say the opening sequence was the worst bond opening ever but at the end of the day i can get over all that if the film had been directed well.

What i did like about the film and gave it 5 stars for is that it is still a Bond film. The story was a great continuation of the story arc left from Casino. Daniel Craig is in my books is by far one of the best as Bond. The on-going story arc of Bond, Mathis and the CIA Agent from Casino had a nice emotional reasonace for me in the film. And something opposing common opinion, i thought the villain was decent.

I believe this film would have been greater if not for the direction. What we have left here is a poor Bond film when we were all expecting after Casino a great one. Regardless of the fact it is Bond i feel that at best this a average movie that without its pulling power of title and actors would be quickly forgotten.

Casino was great, QOS was average to mediocre. My suggestion for the third is simply....never , never and i mean NEVER hire this director again.
6/10
Nice fights, shame about the plot.
Lucky_C31 October 2008
I'm writing this as a long time lover of the Bond series. Despite my skepticism about the reboot concept, I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale. Unfortunately, QoS does not live up to it's predecessor, although it is far from being a bad film.

A smart and fast-paced opening starts the film well, setting the action shortly after the events of Casino Royale. Bond is out for revenge, and this is reflected in some very brutal action scenes, which surely push the 12A rating imposed by the BBFC. Hints are dropped about mysterious groups, which will surely become a plot point in future films.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the only point behind QoS. The plot involves a lot of political squabbling over the treatment of third world countries that frankly feels like it has been written by a Year 12 Marxist sociology student. Whilst Mathieu Amalric provides a suitably slimy villain, you feel that the role is wasted. The shadowy Quantum feels like a sub-par Spectre, and we can only hope their role will be beefed up in future films.

However, it's not all bad. Fight scenes are excellently choreographed, and there are some touching scenes between Bond and Camille. The series continues to go darker, and we can hope that this future films will be better executed than this effort.

Worth a watch, but it could have been handled so much better.
7/10
Not as good as "Casino Royale", but an entertaining action film nonetheless (SPOILERS) Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Expectations for the 22nd James Bond film, "Quantum of Solace", were exceptionally high following the success of 2006's "Casino Royale". This comes to no surprise, as not only was "Casino Royale" a genuinely brilliant film, but it was a monumental success worldwide. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson pretty much cursed themselves by making CR so good; questions arose almost immediately how they could possibly follow-up such an amazing film. However, the potential to make a better film was still there and the entire crew gave it their all to make Daniel Craig's second outing just as good.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that "Quantum of Solace" simply can't top its predecessor. By choosing director Marc Forster to helm the production, the producers hoped to bring a realistic human element to the film in conjunction with the classic Bond elements such as humour, action, and romance. But Forster is not an action film director and even though he was an interesting and even daring choice, perhaps someone with experience in the field should've been chosen instead.

What really sets the film apart from the rest of the Bond series is that it is the first real sequel (a strong case can be made for "From Russia with Love" being a direct sequel to "Dr. No", however). As such, one would be well advised to have seen "Casino Royale" beforehand, at least to be aware of the general plot line shared between both films. "Quantum of Solace" picks up shortly after Bond's apprehension of Mr. White, one of the chief antagonists in the previous outing. One is immediately treated to a car chase in which the motivation of the villains isn't made too clear, but it is assumed that White's bodyguards are trying to retrieve their boss. From then on, the film moves at a lightning fast pace as Bond zips across the globe trying to uncover who is behind the mysterious organization known as Quantum (a modern day SPECTRE) and to avenge the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd.

The greatest detriment of the film is that it feels the need to rush things along when a little more contemplation would have been appreciated; at 106 minutes, QoS is the shortest film in the franchise. A lot of criticism was leveled against "Casino Royale" for being "too slow" or "too long", but the deliberate pace of the film is one of it's best assets. Its almost as if the producers reacted in response to this criticism and tried to make QoS as fast as possible and lost a little bit of coherence along the way. Granted, Forster does manage to adequately convey a lot of information and events into a short amount of time and if one is ever confused, it's because they weren't paying close enough attention. In reality, "Quantum of Solace" is one of the most plot dense and intelligent films in the series, but this can't hide the fact that Marc Forster's action scenes are almost incomprehensible.

In short, the editing in the film is frequently much too frantic for one to decipher what is going on. The opening car chase, the Siena rooftop chase, and the plane chase in particular suffer from the MTV-inspired editing that plagues most modern day action films and its obvious that this was done to disguise Forster's lack of experience in the genre. If the editing had been a little bit slower and focused, the action sequences in the film could've been amazing; as they are, they simply rank as average. The film is almost non-stop action and some tightening of these sequences in favour of perhaps fifteen more minutes of plot exposition would have benefited the film.

Other the sloppy editing and the rushed feel of the finished film, "Quantum of Solace" does have a lot of things going for it. The lack of any real gadgets so common in the previous films is similar to CR and it's refreshing to see Bond have to rely on his improvisational skills. The dry humour works especially well for Craig's Bond and the actor makes the comedic scenes work while the locations of the film are, for the most part, well chosen and beautifully filmed by Roberto Schaefer. My only real complaint is that the time constraints of the narrative demand that Bond only makes brief stops in Italy, Austria, and Russia.

David Arnold continues to show that he is a good successor to John Barry with a score that adapts to the ever-changing storyline (even if the Bond Theme could've been used more often). I also liked all of the subtle nods to the previous film and seeing familiar faces such as Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini return establishes nice continuity between CR and QoS. The entire cast performed very well, even though the character of Fields was completely unnecessary and underdeveloped while the villains of the film (except Mr. White) are forgettable and nonthreatening. The two leads, Daniel Craig as Bond and Olga Kurylenko as Camille are especially brilliant. Craig infuses Bond with both enthusiasm and grit while Kurylenko makes Camille a memorable Bond girl that would be a welcome return in any future film. Both of the actors participate actively in the film's stunts and this adds credibility to the action scenes, even if the romantic angle between these two could've been better developed.

In short, it was clear from the outset that "Quantum of Solace" wouldn't be able to top its predecessor, either commercially or critically, yet the expectations for the film were still unreasonably high. Choosing a more experienced director who could properly edit the action scenes and who could flesh the story out more would've helped tremendously. However, the finished film definitely grows on a person and it helps to watch "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" together as they each tell one half of a two-part story. 7/10
1/10
HORRIBLE!!!
jimaolsen17 July 2021
THE ACTION SCENES WERE UNBERAVLE TO WATCH!!!! TOO SHORT CLIPS.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
007 / 20 (Screen)
leplatypus9 November 2008
My last Bond in theater was « Goldeneye » in 1995. I remember to have been terribly fan about the cast and the story plotted in Russia in post cold war. Another time, another world.

13 years after, the magic is gone unless you got 5 years old, in reference to the happiness of my friend's son!

From my point of view, the movie is filled with great action but the story and locations are a deception.

It's a sequel of "Casino Royal" so if you haven't watch it as me, you don't understand the main thing!

Gone the spies, the gadgets, it's a Bond with a vengeance!

Very much like "A View To Kill" and at its release, its darkness was the motive of firing Timothy Dalton! Will the thunder strikes again?

For those who don't understand the enigmatic title, "Quantum of Solace" means the littlest amount of solace you must find in a relationship. When you don't find it, you know it's time to turn the page. A good advice in my actual life!
5/10
Did I watch the same movie as everyone else?
Meven_Stoffat26 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, you guys like to complain! 46 years, and who would have thought James Bond would have made it this far? We've gone through 6 different actors- Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig.

Casino Royale was one of my favorite 007 movies- Daniel Craig sure puts Brosnan to shame. He definitely gives the darker feel to 007. He did so in Casino Royale, and does the same here. Sure he ain't Sean Connery, but he definitely is a great Bond.

Now this one starts an hour after Casino Royale's ending. Bond is Vengeful, despite Vesper having betrayed him in the last film. He is not himself and has yet his biggest challenge- Dominic Greene, an eco-power enviromentalist, who's planning to drain all of Bolivia's water supply. Along the way he meets a hot Russian chick named Camille, who is the only one who contains information about GREENE and the company QUANTUM, requiring him to put himself ahead of MI6, M, and everything else to unravel Greene's secret sinister plan and stop it... even if it means his life.

The fight scenes weren't as bad as everyone was saying, the quick cuts and shaky camera made it seem more raw to me. It fit the "Action" style very well and I personally loved the action scenes.

THis film is amazing. Sure it's a bit slower than Casino Royale but it still does have great action in it, and even a cool opening credits scene. I must admit I LOVE the opening scene! Oh, and the action scene towards the ending with the hotel and the collapsing floors was AWESOME!!!! This currently my favorite Bond movie at the moment, and it's really good. ANd YES I have seen the 21 other ones.

Anyways, if you're a Bond fan, DO see this. Lower your expectations and have a blast!
5/10
Some tips on how to screw the most successful film franchise.
Nabil_Baransi15 November 2008
1. Take away the gun barrel sequence from the beginning of the film and show it at the very end of the film when people are standing up ready to leave the theater. 2. Choose a song with bad music, for the title sequence and make sure that the name of the film is not included in the lyrics. 3. Remove the character of Moneypenny from the film together with the flirting sequence between her and Bond. 4. Remove the character of Q and remove the technical briefing sequence and the handing over of the gadgets altogether. 5. Replace the exotic locales with some locations that have nothing special about them. 6. Change Bond's persona from one of a stylish gentleman who orders vodka martini shaken not stirred to an alcoholic who drinks six martinis in a row. 7. Also make sure that Bond doesn't make love to any of the Bond girls. 8. Last but not least find a director who only directed 7 films before this one, non of which is an action film, and ask him to direct the film.

Unlike other films, the James Bond films have a ready audience that became larger and larger during the 46 years of the series, and there are basic things that together form a tradition, that this audience expects to see in every Bond movie and these are not to be ignored in any form or manner.

The characters of Moneypenny and Q and the scenes associated with them are essential in every bond film. They were absent from Casino Royale and although the film was a big success it doesn't mean that their absence should become permanent. (I thought that John Cleese was a successful replacement for Desmond Llewelyn).

From the first moment some thing was not quite right about this last film. The absence of the two white dots followed by the gun barrel sequence, the pre-title sequence which, like most of the action scenes in the film, is made of very short and random shots; the film song during the title sequence is awful and does not set the mood for a Bond film.

The only connection between this last James Bond movie and the previous movies of the series is that the main character in this film is called James Bond. The writers, who wanted Bond to appear as a seeker of justice more than the body of a beautiful woman, simply missed the point and turned this movie into an action movie just like any other action movie and if this trend continues it will bring an end to the longest running most successful film franchise in the history of film making.
1/10
OMG Go Back to Running Kites!
dorionbrown20 November 2008
I was like, wow another Bond film with that hottie Daniel Craig! I grabbed some of the girls and we were like, soooo psyched! Then it started and my friend puked after two minutes. The stupid directed like took a film slicer and cut and cut and cut and then pasted it all together in this jumbled jumpy pukey action sequence that totally sucked. I checked it out and this director dude had like no idea how to even do action scenes! "Yeah, I was like totally freaked out at the beginning," Forster admits. "I thought, like, how am I going to do this? And then, like, I realized, it's choreography. If I like block a dramatic scene with the beats, it's totally like, very similar with an action sequence." So in short he just winged it and like, totally made what could have been a steamy movie with really super lines like, "I can't find the stationary" and super cool scenes with hot babes dead and covered in oil into a steaming pile of solace.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good, but certainly not great
sanddragon93911 November 2008
As the sequel to the critically acclaimed Casino Royale, and with the largest budget of any Bond movie ever, expectations were soaring pretty high for Quantum of Solace, the 22nd film of the Bond franchise. Sadly, the film simply does not live up to the high standards established by its predecessor. That's not to say its a bad film. It's pretty good actually, but still somewhat of a disappointment compared to Casino Royale.

As far as action is concerned, QOS has it all. Chase sequences on land, sea and air; violent physical confrontations, death-defying stunts, intense shoot-outs, death...And yet, in the midst of this vast sieve of intense and furious activity, there is one fundamental element missing...the plot! 007 is on a mission to track down the mysterious organization responsible for Vesper's betrayal and death. Hes struggling not to make his mission personal. But somehow, the premise of the movie is used solely as an excuse to justify one spectacular action scene after the other, with a few words of dialogue stringing them together. Bond travels from Italy to Haiti, Austria, Bolivia and Russia leaving a trail of bodies in his wake, while we know nothing of the villains plans or the Bond girl for much of the first half of the film. The villain Dominic Greene does come across as the devil incarnate hidden amidst a smooth exterior, but we hardly see him indulging in anything remotely villainous for most of the film. Apart from his extensive contacts in the Bolivian police force and the CIA, he seems pretty vulnerable and poses no real threat to Bond. Bond instead spends much of the film evading the police, the CIA and MI6 itself as a rogue agent, with Greene and his organization(about which we barely know anything new)remaining relatively unknown factors.

However, the lack of a plot is redeemed somewhat by the excellent performance of Daniel Craig as James Bond. Having redefined the character for a new era in Casino Royale, Craig continues with his darker interpretation of the character, even though, at times during this movie, Bond comes across more as a hit-man for MI6 rather than a spy, although one cannot entirely fault Craig for this. Craig plays the character with a hitherto unseen intensity, especially in a confrontation at the end of the movie. His Bond can be the suave and sophisticated secret agent when he wants to, but its only an act...inside hes a cold-blooded killer who happens to be bound by duty and by principles. Bond comes across as a defender of faith and a destroyer of evil even in the darkest and most corrupt of times. Judi Dench supplements Craig's performance in her role as MI6 chief M, who is still doubtful as to whether she can trust 007 and his unconventional methods with this mission. M is around in this film a lot more than any of the Bond girls or the villain, shes almost as constant a presence as Bond himself. Bond and M's relationship, which is both professional and even personal to an extent continues to develop in this film. Then we have Jeffrey Wright playing CIA Agent Felix Leiter, who comes across as a man who shares Bond's views but lacks the necessary will and zest for action to do something about them, instead preferring to place his trust in Bond. Olga Kurlenko plays Camille, the feisty Bond girl on a mission of vengeance much like Bond's himself, who becomes Bond's ally rather than love interest. And Mathieu Almaric's portrayal of Greene I have already mentioned.

Ultimately, Quantum of Solace may not match up to such Bond greats as Casino Royale, From Russia with Love and Thunderball, but it is in no way a failure of the likes of Moonraker and A View to a Kill. If you simply look at it solely as an action film, you would appreciate it a lot more than if you try to compare it to the more plot driven Bond films.
3/10
Again, not the James Bond we know & love
TheOvereducated26 February 2020
Like with its predecessor, this is not the James Bond we know & love. This time, they did tone down the ridiculous vulnerability and inexperience regarding love, yet brought a seemingly complicated, but actually bland and boring plot on the table.

Continuing directly where the last film ended and bringing back characters and storylines from that film is an interesting premise, that could have made the new story intriguing and unique. Yet, they totally fail, because there's not any smart connection between the old characters and the new story. Furthermore, again like with its predecessor, if Daniel Craig's character was not called James Bond you wouldn't notice that this is a James Bond movie. You would have thought you saw a watchable, but boring and forgettable action movie. By the way, all that shaky cam in the action scenes got me dizzy!

Lastly, the 007 theme song at the opening credits, performed by Jack White & Alicia Keys, unfortunately prepares you perfectly for what you're going to see... The song is plain "meh". It's too simple & empty regarding the arrangement and hence, sounds like a song written & performed by a mediocre high school band. The songwriting concept of simple ideas has worked very well for Jack White (The White Stripes) a couple of times in the past (e.g. Seven Nation Army), but, it is definitely not suitable in any James Bond movie/big budget spy action movie.
7/10
Good. But missing the original magic...
Rhysoedwards30 November 2008
Quantum of Solace is a good film...and if it wasn't linked to the famous franchise i'm sure it would be hailed by many...except it's downfall is the fact it is supposed to be a James Bond film.

Don't get me wrong, i think the cheesy attitude of Moore has no place in todays franchise, yet we do need a bit more Bond. The producers have set up the story in two parts...and they have been brilliant instalments. Yet, i hate to say it...but humour and gadgets need to come back. At first look at Casino Royale i was amazed...it was a little less like a Bond film but many people loved it because of that... and now the sequel comes around i'm afraid we're starting to miss the banter with Q, and constant flirtation with Moneypenny..

"Bond. James Bond" "Shaken not stirred."

I think it's time they come back..

The plot was reasonable.. and the film was done very well... with strong performance's.. and the right level of emotion..but whose to say we can't throw a bit of Humour and cheek in as well..

I think Craig has the potential to make the best Bond film..they just have to level Casino Royale.. with Goldfinger... Bring back Q, Moneypenny, Gadgets, humour, but keep the seriousness of the plot and story which makes Quantum such a good film.

Bond is certainly back...but i think the third instalment for Craig could be the decider whether the Fourth will be worth bothering.

R.
6/10
Neither good nor bad
sauravjoshi859 March 2021
Quantum of Solace is an action spy movie directed by Marc Forster and stars Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and Judi Dench.

This movie is twenty second bond movie and second to star Daniel Craig.

Honestly this movie is not a bad movie but neither good as expectations were quite high after 'Casino Royale'.

The movie starts just after where the 'Casino Royale' ends and starts on a shaky note. The camera in the action sequence was so shaky that you can't understand what's going on the screen.

The plot of the movie was good and was more of a revenge drama unlike other bond movies. Execution of the plot is bad and plays a spoilsport in the movie.

Acting is another disappointment as apart from Dench and Kurylenko, most of the characters were disappointment. It seems Craig is still mourning the death of Vesper and couldn't overcome from this and Amalric doesn't fits into a role of Bond villain.

Screenplay of the movie is average and looses grip in between. Climax is average and doesn't creates much ripples. In my opinion an average Bond movie which might entertain few and might disappoints a few.
5/10
Not impressed at all
soger22 March 2009
Seriously, this is the new James Bond movie? James Bond movies were never my favorites but I still watched them for the action scenes, the cool gadgets and Bond's nonchalant elegance. This movie delivers only the action scenes but nothing you haven't seen before. So let me criticize some aspects:

First of all, where are the gadgets??? Every super-agent should have and use them. This James Bond handles everything with a pistol and a mobile phone.

Second of all Daniel Craig as James Bond? Who the hell decided that? His face has no character, he leaks the elegance necessary for this part, and THIS guy gets all the ladies? Come on, were there no better candidates?

And last (but not concluded) MI6's computers. I know that the authors of the movie wanted something impressive. The Microsoft Surface is not such a big deal and there was the other computer that projected the information on the transparent wall of the office which, well... you could say that it is shiny and everything but the excessive flashing and the transparent screen (by letting you see what's behind the wall) distracts your attention from your work, so before you design a super-fancy computer think about how useful would it be in real life.
7/10
Solid followup to Casino Royale; grim closure
dfranzen7015 November 2008
Even without the gimmicky gadgetry, the misogyny, and the Moneypenny, Quantum of Solace is an able entry in the long-running James Bond series. Although it is quite violent, the action is basically nonstop for the entire length of the movie, and Daniel Craig holds his own (again) as the now-towheaded, gritty superspy. Quantum of Solace is breathless and exhilarating, moving its minimalist plot so quickly that at times it's hard to tell exactly what's happening.

The action begins about one hour after the end of the last Bond film, Casino Royale, with a terrifying car-chase (and foot-chase) scene through an Italian town, as Bond is in hot pursuit of a man who may have some connection to the late Vesper Lynd of the previous film. Bond needs closure, you see; he needs to get over Vesper's death somehow, and to him that means finding out what she was all about. Through the course of his pursuits, he discovers that the trail leads to one Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a shifty entrepreneur who runs an eco-first company (Greene, get it?). But this being a Bond movie, Greene isn't the be-all, end-all villain, is he? Well, there's also a corrupt Latin American dictator-in-waiting; perhaps he'll do. Vying for Bond Girl status are Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who of course is with the evil Greene, and Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), who's an agent with MI6 (but who's also barely seen in the movie anyway).

The most striking difference between this and the other Bond films, save for Casino Royale, is how angry James Bond is. Craig does a slow burn very well; he's not bristling with contempt, but you can tell it's smouldering just beneath the surface. He's bent on revenge, a fact that M (Judi Dench) picks up on rather quickly, so the question is: Can Bond put aside his emotions to concentrate on finding something about the new super-secret organization, following in the footsteps of SMERSH and SPECTRE, that's behind everything? M doesn't trust Bond entirely, in part because in the two films since the reboot he's killed basically everyone who's gotten in his way, even people who might have been useful.

But what makes this a Bond movie, exactly? There's Bond and M, and there's a Bond Girl with an intentionally wacky name (Strawberry Fields, according to the credits, and yes, she's a redhead). Craig's Bond is charming and ruthless (often simultaneously), and he's not prone to the sardonic one-liners that preceding Bonds were prone to spout. Now, one could argue that those lines were cheesy and dopey, but what they did was offset the action scenes. You don't get that in QoS, really; Craig's Bond is a man of few words. And he's single minded and unrelenting, striving to come to terms with Vesper's death before his grief can completely consume him.

Even with the rage and grimness, though, this is still quite an acceptable movie. After 46 years of Bond films, the audience has a good idea of what to expect from the movies: explosions, girls, chases, and Bond. Quantum of Solace, filmed in six countries, maintains the exotic-locale quotient, too, another staple of the series. (It would be too much to have James Bond do all of his spying in one country, certainly.) Jeffrey Wright returns (briefly) as CIA agent Felix Leiter, a character who's been in several of the Bond films (and was actually fed to Blofeld's sharks, off-screen, in Licence to Kill), and Jesper Christensen returns as Mr. White, last seen running at the end of Casino Royale. But there's no Q, and no Moneypenny, although rumor has it that both will appear in the next Bond film.

On the whole, Quantum of Solace is a satisfying popcorn movie. It's not overplotted - as had been the case with many others in the series - and the action is so frenetic that it is often tough to follow on its own merits, but because of the simplistic plot, one can put the pieces together easily anyway. One caveat: It seems that in many of those quick-paced hand-to-hand-combat scenes, Bond is dressed very similarly to his foe, thus making it difficult to tell who's winning. I'll never understand fight choreography. Oh, another question, too: If M is so darn smart, how come she sent an office clerk (Agent Fields!) to put Bond on a plane? Good Lord.
10/10
Just look at the opening...The first glimpses of the Aston Martin and the music set the tone for this dark and exciting movie
Angelus29 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I previously commented on this movie. But since then, I bought the DVD and have watched it with pure admiration for every single second.

Following the events of Casino Royale, we see Bond who has been betrayed by his lover, and so James locates the men responsible for this treachery, realising in the process that it was not an act of betrayal by Vesper, but love.

This film has some excellent scenes and some disappointments but it captivates you in a way that no other Bond film has been able to do.

I will quickly state were I felt the movie failed. The dialogue was not as riveting as previous films and the 'Rouge Agent' aspect has been done before. Dominic Greene was a good villain, but would have liked to seen someone more menacing and cunning...

Now the 'great' aspects, within the first second we the audience are pounded by the heavy, dark and moody music. And catch glimpses of the Aston Martin, which gives it a more menacing look and then we witness one of the greatest openings to a movie...Bond drives violently in a narrow tunnel, trying to get away from the baddies as they shoot and crash their way through.

Bond rips the door of his Aston open by swerving violently and rushes through the traffic, eventually shooting his enemy off the road and then drives into a hide-out. Opening his boot, he stares at his hostage and smiles; followed by the tingling music.

And then he chases a rogue agent across the rooftops of Italy and hangs from a rafter as he tries to grab his gun in time. The plane scene was a little disappointing while the end is a visual extravaganza.

The introduction of Camille is done brilliantly and I can simply say that she is probably my favourite 'Bond Girl'. Tough, intelligent and beautiful. The theme song is also a bonus and how the desert becomes a woman...A visual feast...

Those who complain that there are no gadgets, or that its too action packed. The truth is that the drama aspect of a 'Spy-Movie' has been long gone... I would like to see gadgets come along in the future, something small....Not a car that turns invisible... But a 'Gadget-less' Bond is still exciting...

Looking forward to the third.
5/10
It's time for James Bond to retire.
PWNYCNY20 November 2008
This movie gives reasonable cause to ask: Is James Bond passé? Is the genre of James Bond movies now a thing for the history books? Daniel Craig's performance is uninspiring and the story itself is so devoid of anything that even remotely challenges ones intellect that the entire movie becomes a bore, and James Bond movies are not supposed to be boring. Every aspect of this story is predictable, every character a reiteration of previous characters, every special effect utterly superfluous in a transparent attempt to fill in those spaces where the dialog fails or is entirely absent. The problem however is not so much the quality of the movie making, it's rather the genre itself. James Bond has been eclipsed by other action characters who are more dynamic, more powerful and more interesting than Bond, who's been on the scene since 1962. How many more times can Mr. Bond be introduced to the audience? Enough already. Let's remember James Bond as he was - debonair, suave, bold, dashing and above all original and unconventional - and all the beautiful women, wonderful villains and startling scenery that characterized those early productions. Mr. Bond is tired, he should retire and maybe become a consultant. But please, no more movies! His day has passed.
4/10
Falls flat where Casino Royale succeeded
Craig_McPherson20 November 2008
The general rule of thumb is that sequels rarely surpass the original, and while Bond films tend not to be categorized as sequels, this rule applies when it comes to Quantum of Solace.

Given the high benchmark set by Casino Royale, the franchise re-boot, one can almost forgive QS for not hitting the same high notes, were it not for the fact that this time around it seems as though it's all everyone can muster just to attain a bare minimum of the quality of the former, let alone equal or surpass it.

Craig once again reprises his role as 007, with the movie picking up literally moments after the point where Casino Royale ended, this time with a blistering car chase that suffers from too many close-ups of the action, blurry shots, and the decision to use vehicles that appear all too indistinguishable, particularly when coupled with the flurried manner in which the sequence was shot, leaving the viewer wondering at times which car is which.

Similar gaffs are made by Director Marc Forster when shooting hand-to-hand combat, with far too many fights photographed from close in, rather than pulling the camera back and allowing the viewer to take in the full spectacle of violence.

Even one of QS's best sequences, a foot chase along the roofs, balconies and precipices of Siena, Italy, was executed to better effect in The Bourne Ultimatum.

Though Casino Royale opted to deliver a stripped down Bond, eschewing the techno gadgetry which the franchise had made its stock and trade, it did hold true to the axiom that a Bond film requires a credible and engaging villain, and it's in this area that QS also falls short. The tepid Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who fronts a bogus environmental group which itself is a player in the larger, secretive, Quantum criminal collective, comes across as little more than a mousy eurotrash dweeb. Hardly a bookend to the enigmatic Le Chiffre who wept blood in Casino Royale.

Sure Greene's quest to hold third world countries hostage by hoarding their natural resources is inspired by real events (in this case the U.S.-based Bechtel's short-lived privatization of water resources in Cochabamba, Columbia), but comeon, this is Bond here! Sure the producers wish to buck the genre but some things are sacrosanct, like evil villains with plans of global domination by the most nefarious means possible.

Sure QS entertains, but when compared to its predecessor, and indeed to many others in the Bond cannon, it represents a sizable step down from what was a promising new beginning.
2/10
What a mess!
ceche10 October 2009
Those of you who rank action above everything else will probably love this film, while those of you who were hoping for a good storyline, "Casinò Royale" style, will be bitterly disappointed. "Quantum" is nothing but a speedy succession of loud and fast paced action sequences, with no substantial elements in the story to uphold them. The worst part of it is that the action itself is not particularly memorable and at times incoherent, except for the beautifully shot Austrian Opera sequence and, perhaps, the "fall-out-of-the-plane" scene, a fact which certainly doesn't help the viewers forget the lack of structure and, on the whole, the sense of pointlessness the film conveys (not to mention the incessant "Quantum" video game ads in the cinema, but that's a matter of bad product placement). We are surely not witnessing the "back to the beginning" direction towards which "Casinò Royale" was headed and, unfortunately, the film cannot be compared with the humorously nonsensical Roger Moore era either, since it's missing the lightness of spirit necessary to overlook a weak premise and an even weaker development story-wise. That being said, I'm going to break a lance in favour of this film, at least in two respects: compared to the previous film, which had none, there's a bit of dark humour involved and Craig seems more comfortable in Bond's shoes. The Bond girl, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), is a mix between Carole Bouquet's Melina Havelock in "For your eyes only" and Carey Lowell's Pam Bouvier in "Licence to kill"... minus the former's magnetic charm and the latter's endearing sassiness. On the other hand the villain, Mr. Greene (Mathieu Amalric), is chillingly unsettling: his calm tone and quick eye, his heartless rationality and seemingly normal appearance provide, overall, a subtle and modern depiction of a psychopathic businessman, even though the character is not sufficiently developed in the script. A special mention goes to Giancarlo Giannini's Mathis, the only genuinely human character in a world populated by monsters. On a final note, I was rather disturbed by a scene near the end of the film which I think women in the audience will feel sensitive to: I recall a scene like that only being referred to explicitly in one of the Dalton films, possibly the closest in style and themes to this new Bond era.
1/10
Quantum of Plot?
johnson_daren2 November 2008
Well I have just returned from the cinema and I am utterly and completely stunned. I am a life-long fan of Bond movies having grown up with them (now 36 years old) and I'll be the first to admit there have been some corkers along the way. However there was always enough class, substance or at the very least tongue-in-cheek to get you through them all.

When I first saw Casino Royale I did not like it but I thought OK, we're trying something new: a new actor; trying to make Bond more gritty and get back to his roots. In time I'm came to accept it and even started to look forward to the next instalment to see how Bond will have grown in style, sophistication, experience, etc.

Sadly this film never fails to disappoint and has a near sub-atomically thin plot, which is perhaps the basis for the "Quantum" portion of the title: The opening sequence was OK, again not a typical Bond but holding onto the new-gritty Bond. This then led into the worst theme music/titles of any bond I've ever heard/seen. Following the "escape" this film then just descended into less and less point or interest to anyone. Yes there was OK action but action without plot, character development or for what I could see any real purpose. What the hell was that all about? The fact that I care less about the sinister organisation which MI6 knew nothing about, than waking up the people around me who fell ASLEEP in the cinema (I kid you not!) should be a clue here guys!

In short this is the worst Bond movie I have ever ever seen and undoubtedly the worst movie I have seen all year (and I have sat through 60+ this year so far). This has without a doubt finally killed Bond off for me and I will not be watching another one of these at the cinema. Either come up with something worthy of Bond's lineage and with something the audience can connect with and care about or Mr Bond it's time to die.
3/10
I really wanted to love this...
derami10018 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was one of the many people who didn't really believe in Craig before Casino Royal but I was also one of the many people who loved Craig and CR. So of course when I was hugely excited about this Bond film. I found the title quite interesting and I found it certainly fit the mood of the end of CR and I was hoping that the Bond/Vesper story would be the main plot here.

It started out really well. I don't really have a problem with the Bourne editing and although some people have said it is not a typical Bond movie any more, well neither was CR and I loved that so it was OK. So the car chase was great and the chase over the rooftops were also good even though I was distracted by the fact that some shots (Bond jumping over the street onto a balcony) were directly from Bourne Ultimatum, which wouldn't have been a bad thing if the didn't already seem very much like Bourne.

More by chance than anything else does Bond get dragged into the whole "bad guy wants to take over the world/country" story and this was for me the main letdown. The villain just wasn't evil or scary or anything. He was basically a businessman who at end was still somehow able to match Bond in hand to hand combat. This was a bit confusing as Bond had been shown that he was almost inhumanly strong (ripping of the door handle). I loved Le Chiffre in CR because although he was also a bit of a weakling he was still evil. And BOnd sudden realization what is going on as they are leaving the cave is just laughable. Having Bond chasing White and revenging Vesper for a whole film would have been a bit thin but it would have been better than this.

Now the action: There are some great scenes (car chase), there are some scenes that are OK (climax in the desert) and there are awful scenes (plane chase). CR was spectacular but pretty down to the ground. This just tried to hard to be amazing. I remember sitting in the cinema and seeing the trailer and I thought "Ok, this all looks great but hopefully they didn't overdo it". Bad luck.

But the action didn't make CR great, it was the reinvention of the characters so maybe that will save this film? Well kind of. The best scenes in this film were not the huge action scenes but the little shots that showed Bond as a human. The sot in the cave, where Bond and Camille are talking about their losses is the best scene in the film because here Forster knew exactly what he was doing. Unfortunately there were only three such scenes in the movie. The others being the final one and Mathis's death. This was really the turning point for me because it showed Bond's very dark and merciless side and that now he was only concentrating on the job at hand.So Craig did a great job again but he was not given enough time. He spent most of the film either jumping, running or shooting so he didn't really get a chance to play the human Bond that much. M had a much larger in this film and Dench probably had more screen time than in all her other Bonds to date put together and she did it really well. The other Bond girl Fields was the one that annoyed me. It was basically the same problem that HMSS had. Bond was still in love with someone yet the seduces another woman and apart from that Fields has no real scene in the film. The Goldfinger reference was neat and Bond's and M's reaction to it again showed more human Bond but I think the whole character could have been cut out.

Right, so to sum it up: The action is bigger but not better than CR, the characters are not as good as CR and the plot is not as good as CR.

7/10
7/10
Good cast but VERY messy story. Not recommended.
fallyhag8 November 2008
The cast, the action, the stunts and the scenery are all great...but the story simply does not make sense. From the very start I was trying to work out how each scene went into the other and was puzzled each time. The action is so thick and fast you almost want it to stop so you can get a grip of the reasons why he is doing what he is.

The main woman is stunning but the one he gets in bed is so cliché and unexplainable...well yet again it just doesn't make sense. The evil villain unimportant and hardly really impacts in the story at all. His climatic end is very underwhelming but to be honest you don't really care enough.

The baddies, the CIA, the MI6, the Bolivians, the police...OMG...too much. Just give me a damn story I can follow. Overall the story is flawed and made o so much harder by a clumsy, messy, illogical direction/edit.

I cant recommend it coz it is just not James Bond as we know it. It's OK to break away from the old formula but it has to work, or it becomes a lemon like this one. Pity.

Wait for the DVD.
6/10
That damned shakycam mediocrity!
kirktoons15 December 2008
Mediocrity.

That repugnant shakycam mania ruined the last Bourne installment and now it ruined Quantum. Shakycams always makes me want to go and find me a Blair witch to vomit on.

Except for that lone shot shooting over the tiled roofs introducing the city of Siena (but who could miss a shot of a place like Siena or Dubrovnik), the camera work lacked the polish that is a trademark of a Bond film. The excellent filming and editing values that made a crumbling Venetian building become a character in the plot in its own right in the first Craig/Bond movie, are beyond Forster's mediocre talent.

Forster tried, I'll give him that; he had 'em shake the camera like nobody's business to imitate some kind of exciting unsteadycam trend he saw in his own pointy little head. But as a director he worked really hard to share the fate of that Douglas DC-3 Dakota.

Even some un-action scenes looked like he asked some kid to hold the camera for him for a few pesos. Or liras. Whatever. Grazie... mediocrity.

Oh! That crumbling Venetian building in Casino Royale was mostly CGI, you say! Look at all of Quantum's action scenes! I'd prefer some honest CGI to Forster's shakycam mediocrity ANY old time! WHY SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON SCENES ONE BARELY CAN SEE? The script was fine. Craig was again an excellent Bond, fighting against Forster's mediocrity.

But I will remember Marc Forster's name and heretofore vow never see any of his filmic eructations again. Yes! Boycott! I hate this loser for pretending to be able to make a Bond film! He is on my black list for torpedoing the Bond franchise.

Forster is as good a director as the CAPS LOCK key on my keyboard is useful.

I wish I could get rid of it, and him too.

Mediocrity RULES!
6/10
Quantum of Solace (2008) **1/2
JoeKarlosi16 November 2008
CASINO ROYALE (2006) was a fresh shot in the arm which had successfully jump-started a rather repetitious old James Bond series. Now here is its direct sequel, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I have seen the movie twice so far and have come to think it's a little better than I first thought when I had left the theater. At first I thought it was really a poor James Bond film and literally the least of the entire franchise; but going back to it at home recently -- and especially right after re-watching CASINO ROYALE again -- I felt it was more acceptable when viewed right after its predecessor, instead of just as a stand-alone experience.

Here, Daniel Craig attempts his second outing as a harder edged and more action-oriented James Bond, still reeling from his experience with Bond girl Vesper from back in CR.

For old die-hard Bond fanatics, QUANTUM OF SOLACE may very well be the most "un-Bondian" installment yet; its action sequences are often frantically shot and haphazardly edited to the point where it's tough to tell what is going on as we're assaulted with too-quick cutting and resulting confusion. (This problem did get easier for me on my second viewing). Bond doesn't seem like he enjoys bedding down with gorgeous women as much anymore, doesn't have a favorite drink, has no need of Q Branch to furnish him with fancy gizmos. With this chapter it's a whole new ballgame.

Much as I liked Craig last time, his now patented tough act of being his own man who breaks all the rules and does what he chooses by not giving a damn about what his boss M (Judi Dench) thinks, is getting all too familiar by now. Perhaps when viewed as a direct continuation of CASINO ROYALE, this is understandable. And Dench, whom I used to enjoy as the head commander M, is becoming such a one-trick pony with her tired routine of loathing Bond's disobedient ways one moment, but then actually admiring him the next... this has been going on since the earliest of the Pierce Brosnan films. It's probably time for her to move away from this franchise.

This isn't a "bad" movie, but it's basically just an epilogue to another film. Don't attempt to watch it without having seen CASINO ROYALE first. And preferably right before.

**1/2 out of ****
10/10
Incredibly Fantastic Riveting Bonafide Bond A 10
elliott7821215 November 2008
I don't wanna give anything away. This is the best Bond I have ever seen. I nearly cried between, cringing, holding my popcorn steady as I held on to my seat. Could it be that this Bond is not just any 007 but that he is human too. I have never felt like I did in any Bond movie and I have seen them all. Casino Royale was good even though a bit slow and long at times but sandwich that one with this one and wow...DID I SAY WOW!!!!! Yes I did. Make sure to re-watch the DVD expanded version to truly appreciate this one there are story threads you will want to see again prior to seeing this one, I am watching it now because had I known what a direct sequel this was I would have done so last night. OMG, this is the Bond that never was, its not just Daniel Craig, its the whole enchilada, from the intricate script, layered drama, incredible never before seen action sequences, Dame Judi Dench has never been better as M, not one character is taken for granted in anyway, every slight character has some degree of depth even those that manage less than 5 minutes of screen time. You will not believe nor did you know that all your life and how many Bond movies before it that you've been waiting for this the one and only BONAFIDE BOND MOVIE EVER. I love you Sean Connery, Peirce Bronan but you could not have made this Bond alone it takes a village.
6/10
Entertaining, not very deep
wisitor_wejner30 October 2008
I am very sad to say that this sequel did not live up to its expectations.

With too little depth and too much action, the Bond from Casino Royale seems to have gone missing. This movie lacks emotion, depth and Bond-humor. It surely tried to make the audience laugh at times, but even on this point failed to do so.

I also got the feeling that the director was trying to copy a winning concept, instead of coming up with more complex scenes and new camera-angles. I would define this as the director trying to create a safe success, but as we all know, no such thing exist.

The movie should have been built up in a different manner from the last movie, it should have contained less violence and more depth. But seeing this was the final cut it just leaves me wondering if it was even possible to create something as good as the prequel out of the script.

I sincerely hope that the director steps out of his comfort-zone until the next movie, and that it has a rock-solid base to build from so that they can create a movie of the same caliber as Casino Royale.

Even though lack of depth, its of course still entertainment, but nothing more than that.
8/10
Quantum of Physics
echozdog-125 January 2009
OK I went into this one with low expectations. I've heard all the "not a bond movie" reviews and was expecting a bad Borne movie. Well there is some truth to that. The action scenes are straight from the Borne movies in that they are annoyingly hard to follow (and don't follow much in the way of being believable). I'm a firm believer that this style of action scenes does not come from the desire of the director to make a more engaging scene, but that they are easier to film in tiny 1/4 second slices and then edit the hell out of it. Shake the camera a lot so to cover up the mistakes. When they did this in the Borne movies and the public loved it we all have to suffer from the imitations.

As for the rest of the movie...it was great. I liked the introduction to the new SPECTRE (Quantum) and liked that aspect of the old Bond films. The villain was kind of crazy enough. I did like that his second (the guy with the little unusualness that all spy movies have) didn't wind up in usual fist fight with bond (this is not a spoiler).

I didn't like the bad guys and I liked the good guys. Action scenes could have been done better (probably budget cuts). Acting was standard.

8/10 Good cheap fun.
3/10
Worst James bond movie ever
ciipix13 December 2008
There is no cool car There are no gadgets, except some 2250-year phone that takes clear pictures in the dark. I wonder if it was a Nokia:)) He sleeps with no one, no sex scenes. He's always upset, mad... he makes it a drama. He flies and jumps almost like spider man... Not even special forces manage to shoot James... come on man!!! Man... I miss Roger Moore, at least for the gadgets:) This is no James bond movie, this is a Steven Segal movie played by Daniel Craig :)) I am very disappointed. The series is going down:( Left alone the scenario, the scenes are cut in small pieces and close ups like in Japanese movies so U cant see that the good guy was hiding behind a tree.

in conclusion, better time next year!:)
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Puzzled by Negative reviews
wabus4426 November 2008
Potential Spoiler Quantum of Solace is not a stand alone film. It is more than just a sequel to Casino Royale, it is really a continuation. Si I am puzzled. How could those who liked Casino Royale find fault with this film? The whole premise of this long movie broken into two parts is that Bond has not yet become the suave and professional Bond we have come to know in various incarnations. This is a re-boot of Bond similar to the re-boot of the Batman.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film because it was intelligent. One had to think while watching the action. There was also some excellent interplay between Bond and the woman character who assisted him. Both were looking for something in terms of vengeance/redemption and that searched shaped them, as made clear with the ending.

Some have indicated that the water control "villainy" was laughable. I guess if you live with access to free clean water this might be so. If, however, 60 per cent of a countries water supply was controlled by a ruthless multi-national corporation and they were successful in privatizing its delivery, it would not be so laughable if the country wanted to go its own way. It would entrench poverty and assure long term control of that country by the multinational with a controlling interest. In other words, realistic villainy. All part of the re-boot.

Overall, the subtlety beneath the action lent a lot of coherence to the plot. Also, it was also helpful to watch Casino Royale again prior to watching Quantum of Solace. A great ride if one pays attention.
10/10
More Bond For Your Buck
ackthpt16 November 2008
Yes, I did rate this a 10. I found Quantum of Solace to be an excellent continuation from Casino Royale with action, plot and good acting.

Quantum of Solace is not your father's James Bond, he's tough, resourceful and has his flaws, all the more to keep interest pegged. Daniel Craig is still a very convincing 007, Mathieu Amalric (brilliant in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) plays a ruthless and delightful part in the cast of villains, Olga Kurylenko a fantastic Bond Girl (almost scrubs the horrible Halle Berry part from memory.) There's a bit of travel, to locales not as romantic as in the old Bond films, this is a back to basics thriller, not all special assignments are to the beauty spots of the world. CIA and MI6 are painted in more shades of grey then before. It's murky business when politics, business and intelligence collide, isn't it? I'd see this one again, so much happening I swear I missed quite a bit. Good stuff. I also appreciate where there appear to be jumps in the story, with potential scenes left out - really, did I need to see some mundane stuff to stretch out the film and slow the pace down? Nope. I'm fine with it. A super popcorn flik if ever there was one.
Action? Everywhere All Around the World
RainDogJr16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm a young fella, young enough to can say that I haven't seen almost all of the James Bond films and not feel really ashamed however now I feel true desires to finally read some of the books by Ian Fleming and watch more James Bond films. But I do watched Casino Royale and actually I haven't seen it since that time when I saw it on the big screen back in December 2006 then last Friday when I saw the second James Bond film with Daniel Craig, Quantum of Solace, I didn't had very clear in my mind Casino Royale (right now I'm in the same position but as soon as I can I will watch Casino Royale again!) however when the credits of Quantum of Solace were on the big screen I was thinking something like "I liked it, fun, very entertaining, Bond talking in Spanish (only a few words and some of them don't make a lot of sense!), yeah Quantum of Solace is a good picture but I kind of remember liking more Casino Royale". Now if you check the comments by IMDb users you will find that this film was a complete disappointment for many, a lot of reviews with 6 out of 10 stars and what I just write about liking more Casio Royale is probably the most repetitive phrase about Quantum of Solace.

Action? Well, everywhere all around the world, we see Bond in Italy, Haiti, Austria, Bolivia, Russia and we see him killing and killing. Is also funny that practically we see Bond in action on the road, on a boat, on a plane and even with an opera as background (probably my favourite scene), for me was really fun to watch those action sequences, Bond will not be interrogating on this one. But what's the story? Well I don't think is really important since basically is typical, we have a bastard who's Dominic Greene (nice performance by Mathieu Amalric who was completely unknown for me) and who's plan is obviously just for his own ambition however only we and Bond will know that. Then we have practically a lonely Bond in this mission but certainly M knows that Bond knows something. Sexy Olga Kurylenko plays Camille Montes and certainly the story of this character is nothing new, classic stuff: she will be in the side of Bond but she has her own mission, she wants vengeance against the one who ended with her family. So we have Medrano, a character who can be seen as an enemy but certainly with Bond facing Dominic Greene would have been enough however Camille is after Medrano, it was really fun to watch Jesus Ochoa as one of Medrano's men even that he don't says a single thing but definitely he is not as fun as that crazy Bolivian taxi driver who unlike Ochoa's character never stop talking! I really enjoyed certain details like Bond talking in Spanish and definitely I can write that Quantum of Solace is a nice Bond picture. Certainly I made that my own comment will not be really "valid" for those big James Bond fans just by writing what I wrote at the beginning however i really liked this film period. Oh and the credits sequence is really magnificent, I liked the main theme by Jack White and Alicia Keys however is one of the weakest efforts by Jack White that I have heard, certainly I can't say that of Keys because I don't know her music.

Finally, this is fun but don't expect Casino Ro… see I was about to write the most repetitive bottom line in Quantum of Solace comments but I will write my own: in what I remember Casino Royale was good but not that fantastic, Quantum of Solace is just good so go and watch it on the big screen!
1/10
JAMES BOND Franchise on the Path to Extinction!
gonwk26 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace I am surprised this movie has gotten a 7.0 Rating … it should be rated a 2 or 3 at best (with the assumption that there will people out there they will rate a movie 10 even if Stinks!). You can NOT even tell if Quantum of Solace is a James Bond movie with the opening music … what a crock … what a waste of opening song … since when a Rap song qualifies for a James Bond series movie. I guess we are still trying the "Change" theme. It simply sucked! That is the only adjective that I can think of to describe the opening song. And what was with the opening Scenes … boy nothing like a James Bond … LAME, lame, lame! As far as Daniel Craig goes the Bond Franchise better start looking for someone else … please somebody tell this guy to act "Natural" biting your top lip constantly does NOT make You more James Bondish looking.

And for God's sake someone should FIRE Judi Dench (M) … it is the TIME for a new "M"! Actually 5 minutes into her first appearance with Peter Brosnan was time for her to QUIT! Even the Fans that like Daniel Craig they HATE her! She stinks! Can't quite put my finger on it but Really she ain't cutting the mustard.

What … no special Gadget in a James Bond movie … what gives fellas!!! They think a big screen with sliding windows apps qualifies for "High-Tech" gadgetry!?!? Action was fine! And that is all! The only reason I went to see this Movie was because I had a FREE Ticket! Otherwise would waited to see it on DVD and even then at a Friend's house so I don't have to pay for this crappy James Bond flick! Please, please, DON'T screw up the next James Bond flick! I am Die Hard James Bond Fan!

G!:)
1/10
Spectacular Casino Royale's ended in a disappointment
punchoo8 November 2008
I was waiting for the sequel for since I saw Casino Royale. On the first day of its release in New Delhi, I got the opportunity to see the movie. The movie unfortunately did not live up to the expectations at all. Never did I think in a million years that the sequel would be so disappointing. Right from the beginning of the movie with so many edits to the scenes it was hard to figure out who is chasing who. It looked like an amateur opening to a Bond film. Unlike Casino Royale where Bond felt like a real human being, QOS failed to present Bond neither as a conventional James Bond nor as a British agent working his way out as an agent would do in a real life situation or even close to it. It all felt like a super hero movie at times. The aeroplane sequence was presented badly, the chase was bad and the end of the movie felt like some Austin Power action. We were laughing are backsides off. Not at all recommended!!! Hope someone takes time and remakes this movie with a much better story and direction.
19 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A perspiring and unoriginal action movie
niezone17 November 2008
If Casino Royale was a departure from the gadgetry-driven, comically conceived plot that characterized almost all previous Bond movies, it will be evident to you that "Quantum of Solace" is perhaps the most radical and extensive departure from the elements that distinguished the Bond series and made it a very unique action/thriller saga. The departure, however, was not a good one. With Casino Royale, the Bond series had taken a turn away from the silly theatrical action of the past to a plot-driven slick thriller. The characters were no longer the unidimensional types of yore: the super-male, the super-villain and the erotically charged superwoman; instead the characters were now believable and realistic, stripped away from the superlatives of the past. With Quantum of Solace, however, the Bond series oversimplifies itself. It takes away the intelligence and realism of the predecessor not by going back into the common Bond traits, but rather by exploring all of the cliché moments of any other Hollywood action movie. Quantum had its share of pursuits, of high-speed mass destruction, of physical manly violence and the slick gunfight that has become the trade of the industry. Quantum does without the popular agent Q (the gadget expert) and manages to rely on a Bond whose only weapons are his talents. At first glance, this could have been a welcomed evolution, but sadly, I could not help but hope that the silly details of the past could lighten up the somber mood that permeated the entire film. We come to believe that the only thing that drives Bond's pursuits is his thirst for revenge, instead of the more rosy and Utopian desire to restore order and peace.

The action-packed film does not provide the comic relief of old and it does not even provide viewers with a last climatic action scene, for the ones that open the movie are far more stunning and complex. The villains are unimpressive, the malevolent plan is rather weak and the many actions sequences seem to have been extracted piece by piece from far more effective and more entertaining action films.

The bright notes of the movie are mostly provided by the cool and slick aura that Daniel Craig is able to give to this hyper muscular post-modern Bond character. Beyond that, Quantum of Solace follows every trick in the long history of action movies without providing the fun silliness of the Sean Connery years, or the vast twist and turns that kept us interested during Casino Royale.
7/10
Dark Bond kicks it "Old School"
plex20 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As we discovered in "Casino" the production team pushed the reset button on the Bond empire, building up from scratch with an "old school" approach to story telling and character interaction/development. This apparent new mantra is continued in this latest installment almost to the point of being self-aware about it. There are no gadgets, lavish sets or overly improbable situations. The villain is water profiteer for a small 3rd world country- hardly the Spectre vibe. Even the overall look of the film seems dated and Bond is quite often unquaffed and sullied along with the gratuitous femme fatale. Having said that, I found the story to be solid but not well told. There are many actions scenes (of course) but all of them were shot at extremely close range with rapid editing and dizzying camera movement leaving me to ponder in each of these scenes what was really going on. We know that Bond virtually wins every battle,i.e. we KNOW the outcome. But as a good story teller , the director needs to convey to the viewer HOW these battles are waged, but it never comes across. I still feel Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery but part of Bond's charm is that he never takes himself too serious and has occasional amusing quips- the writers don't allow for any of this with Craig's character development. Lastly, the premise that Bond is on a revenge trip is extremely downplayed and not the cornerstone of the story we have been led to believe. Will be just as effective on DVD.
2/10
Lots of "bling" and loads of time wasted!
TheTSCTH8 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is a waste of time! Thats how simple it is! I'm a big bond fan, and have seen all of the other bond movies a 100 times, and know my bond genre, but movie is not even worth being called movie. It should have been a direct-to-video fan flick of the lowliest kind.

The movie basically starts out where Casino Royale left off (yet another bad Bond movie), and features some of the worst action scenes. First we have a shooting scene, without action or even violence, followed by a few racing scenes, that made me reach for the M&M, which seemed more exciting. Then followed up by a "boat battle" scene, which ends in Bond virtually giving up and sailing off?!? And the whole movie is crammed packed with scenes just as boring! And to make everything even worse, the movie is based on a true story in Bolivia, where a company gained control of the water supply and then tripled the prices (quite boring by Bond standards), but by some strange twistedness of the producer, they decided that their audience couldn't handle that, since the "bad" guy in the movie only doubles the water price in Bolivia. Apparently water pricing is hardcore to the modern audience! To top it all off there is no consistency or even will-to-live in this movie, and by some (read: Bad) choice of the producer, visual effects make good movies, while script doesn't! The entire movie reeks of rejected film-student, with a budget to break and a franchise to ruin. The only times the movie shows promise is in few bleak moments where a parallel is drawn old Bond movies, but those moments fade out of memory, as you try not the fall asleep. My M&M where the most exciting and mind blowing that happened in that theater, and i don't pay that much to sit in a ill lit room, where i can't talk for 2 hours, just to eat M&M! So do yourself a favor, and use all of your movie money to buy 2 packs of candy and a bus ticket home, since that will be worth more to you in the long run!
1/10
This is worst than Craiges first Bond and that's hard to do.
kmiller1227 November 2008
This is worst than the first Bond that Craige did. I just cannot stand his style of "Bond" acting. I am an actor and I have never worked with someone who appears this bad on a characterization. Thought they would have improved after the first one, but nnnnoooooo.

Terrible movie, worst yet, not a real Bond quality actor. Worst of all so far. He is a terrible Bond. Makes a better Inspector Gadget. Not a good scenery direction in my opinion. Have seen better action shots in Disney movies. Main character is just not Bond and needs to be replaced. This remake is not as good as the first and it was not good either. I remember when we were enchanted by good Bond characterizations and better times at the drive-in picture shows entertained by the best Bonds of ever. Wonder what happened to the magic of Bond? Nothing can replace the real actors doing Bond characterization. Go back to real Bond "men" that make the series believable, real and entertaining. Plain talk, the movie sucks.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
James Bourne movie is a clone but still decent
pc9511 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Despite my disappointment that the Bond Franchise is becoming more and more like Jason Bourne movies and less and less like the good old days, I'll recommend this movie. It is very well edited and some great international locales. (Spoilers)It also moves at a sharp pace and features a 2/3 of the way through stunning plane chase scene. Compared to the first Daniel Craig Bond outing, the movie smartly dumps some of the so-called obligatory drama and includes some of the old one-liner quips. Yes they've made Bond a lethal remorseless killing machine and taken most of the suave humor which made the old standbys so re-watchable. (Big Spoiler) How remorseless? At one point Bond uses his trusted friend as a human shield - really tasteless....anyway. This new sleek movie runs a brisk 1:40 min and seems over before you know it. The villains here seemed a bit better than last outing as was the Bond Girl a heck of a lot attractive than Casino Royales. It's a decent improvement from the last installment. Hopefully some decisions will be made to bring back more humor.
4/10
It's just not Bond.
firefall-431 December 2008
How did they get it so wrong? Bond is a franchise- and like any franchise there are certain expectations that have to be honoured for the franchise to work. With Macdonalds it is a particular range of burgers prepared in a particular way, with Bond it is exotic locations, beautiful women, exotic villains, complex scripts, engaging and humorous character interactions, solid character development and spectacularly vivid and clear action sequences. Unfortunately, Quantum of Solace misses more than it hits with these expectations.

The exotic locations are there, but the camera doesn't linger long enough on any of them for us to appreciate and enjoy them (or even, on occasion, recognize them). The beautiful women are there but Bond is too preoccupied with his grief for the recently departed Vesper, and the camera is too preoccupied with sustaining the frenetic pace of the story for either Bond or us to enjoy them. The villains are exotic enough, but they are all given too little film time for us to truly despise them. The script is suitably complex and engaging but the speed of the central action fails to allow us the time to adequately process the information so we can follow it.

The humorous character interactions and the solid character development are sadly lacking. Bond and M (because of our understanding of their relationship as developed in Casino Royale) make the most of their moments on screen, but the other characters don't have that history and consequently the time to develop our interest in them.

The most disappointing aspect, however, is the filming style of the action sequences. Even the clumsiest films of the franchise have clear and spectacular action sequences. This is the one element in all of the films that never requires explanation or intellectual interpretation to know what's going on – not so in Quantum of Solace. The action sequences are so disjointed and jumpy as to leave the audience totally confused. It appears that the director is so determined to give us the experience of the action from Bond's perspective that if Bond doesn't see it – neither do we. Consequently most of the traditional climaxes to the action sequences are missing, leaving the audience to surmise what just happened.

Marc Forster, obviously doesn't understand the Bond franchise. Unlike any other movie series ever created, Bond depends on certain formulaic elements to be a Bond film – to stray from them is to deny what the Bond film should be – exhilarating, sexy, fun, escapist entertainment. Forster seems to have tried to write his own signature on this film - creating a dry, gritty, fast but ultimately dull experience.

Perhaps the Producers, seeing the error of their ways, may see fit to re-edit the film for DVD distribution so that we get a fuller more entertaining version of the characters and the action – but I'm not holding my breath. Lets hope, at least, that they have the good sense to return to the formula that made the series so spectacularly successful in the first place with Bond 23, otherwise this is one aficionado who will not be hanging around for Bond 24.
10/10
Almost as good as the flawless Casino Royale.
dead4754817 November 2008
In 2006, James Bond was reinvented. After four decades of him being displayed as a suave, cheesy and one-dimensional spy, we finally saw a darker side of the man. In Casino Royale Bond was a brutal, vicious bastard with a heart colder than ice. But that changed when Vesper Lynd came into the mix and melted this man's heart. For the first time in history, we saw a Bond in love, and were then witness to the tragedy that came when he found out that she betrayed him and he had to watch her die.

For the first time in the franchise, Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to it's predecessor. In fact, it begins almost immediately after Royale as Bond is in the midst of escaping with the man he found and captured at the end of the previous film. It's clear from the beginning that he is even more ruthless now and he's going to bring down anyone who stands in the way of his revenge. He's not 'out for blood' in the classic sense, but he won't think twice about tossing a man through a window and bleeding him out on his patio if the man attacks him. He wants to find whoever is ultimately responsible for the death of the woman he loved and, in the end, the person who allowed him to feel and then ripped that love away. Once again, this newly reinvented Bond goes beyond the rest of the franchise by pouring a strong amount of true emotion into this story.

A lot of the emotion on this new Bond comes with the help of Daniel Craig, who gives another flawless performance in the lead role. Last time he went through a range of emotions, but now he is just a wrecking ball of rage driving towards the people who hurt him. It's a visceral portrayal that, just like in Royale, shook me to the core. However the most surprising display of internal pain and heartache in this film didn't come from Bond himself, but from the woman who commands him. M usually takes a huge backseat to the action in the series and only pops in once or twice throughout the film to say 'Oh, Bond, you silly boy.' and then disappear. But she's given a lot more depth this time around and Judi Dench takes full advantage of this opportunity to pour emotion into a mostly underused character. At the beginning of the film, one of her men turns out to be a mole for QUANTUM, the organization that they are hunting but have no knowledge of, and he tries to kill her and Bond. This results in a phenomenal chase sequence as Bond chases after the man, but the even more interesting result of the scene is the impact it has on M. We get to see her as a fragile woman who has spent years putting her heart and soul into her job who is shattered when she is almost murdered by a man she trusted to be her own bodyguard. I loved getting the chance to see what's been boiling underneath M's surface all of these years.

Of course with every Bond film comes a Bond villain and here we get the cunning, malicious and intelligent Dominic Greene played with a quiet fury by Mathieu Amalric. I loved this character as, like everything else with the new Bond, he isn't typical to the series. He's not a recycled psychopath with a scar or a cat, to try and make him more menacing than he needs to be. Amalric embodies this man brilliantly by showing from the start that he will do anything to get what he wants and anyone who stands in his way will catch a bullet. His subtle nature and refusal to ever be extravagant or go over-the-top made him all the more frightening as a villain.

In Casino Royale, Eva Green's Vesper Lynd evolved the standard Bond girl that we get to see every film. She was different because she actually got Bond to fall in love with her. She wasn't just a tramp who fell for his charm and was tossed out of his room in the morning. In Quantum of Solace we see another evolution of this usually one-dimensional character with Olga Kurylenko's excellent portrayal of Camille, a woman out for vengeance of her own. Unlike the majority of Bond girls, Camille is a fully developed character with her own story of revenge that is displayed throughout the course of the film. Kurylenko's pure rage and desperate need for revenge against a man who killed her family and burned her house down around her as a child, is a surprisingly interesting subplot to this story and seeing how her and Bond relate to one another while trying to use Greene to get to the people they want is one of the most compelling aspects of this story.

As with every Bond film, there is beautiful scenery and masterfully extensive action scenes all the way through and they've never been better than they are in Solace. All of the action is brutal and whether it's a fistfight, a chase in the sea or in the sky, or a fight with an axe while a hotel is burning down around them, every scene is wildly commanding and had me on the edge of my seat. Daniel Craig's Bond is a much more compelling character than Bond has ever been and this tragically vicious story is what has made both of these films among my favorites of the decade. Quantum of Solace is a film that, while not being as epically flawless as Casino Royale, is still a masterpiece according to this viewer.
6/10
A mere shadow of it's predecessor: Casino Royale
wynonasbigbrownbeaver25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is back but not as strong. He tries to unravel a mystery of a secret organization but it still leads to the great unknown. Meaning that the plot for this movie lost me. He could have done much better with a couple more smart-ass remarks. Instead, he seemed more like the emotionally detached Bond of the old days.

This movie started out great, with a decent car chase. But soon after wards, the plot felt a little too lost to me, and it went way to quick near the end. I felt that there was something missing.

I don't recall seeing any gadgets in the movie like the other James Bond movies, although Casino Royale survived without them. It seemed like it tried to be too hard to be one of the Jason Bourne movies instead of James Bond.

Olga Kurylenko wasn't much in this movie and her publicity outside this movie was over exposed. Most of the supporting cast wasn't really that well developed. Except for M, maybe. The villain entrepreneur wasn't the least bit interesting and had no real depth to him.

That aside, it was a decent action flick, with plenty of fight scenes, explosions, and some decent espionage. It makes me want more than what was delivered and hopefully, this franchise will find itself in its next installment, just like it did in Casino Royale.
9/10
" America will sleep with any nation, if it gets it's share of the world"
thinker169130 May 2009
If a James Bond action film is what you are looking for, Wow! Are you in for a roller-coaster ride of a movie. This film " Quantum of Solace " is nearly impossible to let go even for a second. From the on-set of the film, the action will rocket you from the hi-lands of the Incas, out into the hot barren deserts of Peru. Everywhere our intrepid British spy seems to be on a hunt for those responsible for his former girlfriend's murder. Easily snared by this highly charged movie, the audience is sent careening around narrow mountain passes, through heavy congested traffic, in and around small tunnels and out into the harbor near the sea. Everywhere Bond travels the movie promises to leave you gasping from excitement. The incredible fight scenes between Bond and his enemies which includes a ' 00 ' man and main adversary Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) can only be described as a sheer adrenalin rush. While James Bond (Daniel Craig)seeks his girlfriend's murderer, MI-5 seeks the would-be assassins of 'M' (Judi Dench) and the tie-in with America's CIA. The cast which was so well crafted in Casino Royal is reassembled to include, Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis). Another special notice one should look for is the updated use of the super computers used in the dispelling of information. It's very effective and impressive to say the least. Pay close attention to the plot line as there is so much action, it's easy to forget there is one. Great film! ****
2/10
Worst Movie Ever
bravesfreak200918 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was one of the worse movies for James Bond I've ever seen in my life. There was very little action and nothing made sense during the whole movie, And with all the chases that were going on you couldn't keep up with anything and know what was going on and why something happened...and the movie depended to much on the first one so if you didn't see the first one i strongly advise you to see it first and then go see the this one because you wont understand anything...I saw the first one and didn't even know what was going on most of the time. Also you much watch the movie the whole way through miss a key part to the movie and you will be lost as well, And like in most James Bond movies there is always the famous love scene...Nope don't get your hopes up on that one either guys...It shows them just sitting on the bed....Absolutely horrible movie i thought!!!
5/10
A soulless successor to an impressive predecessor, Casino Royale
akumous6 January 2009
I am a huge James Bond fan, thanks to my father sharing this impressive franchise to me in my past youth. Not all the entries, however, where great but at least they had charm and soul, especially from the character James Bond. Each actor bought some sort of charm and uniqueness to the character which kept the viewers entertained despite the flawed script.

In that regard, Quantum of Solace lacks soul, a soulless sequel with a lot of action and zero personality and lacking any elements that establishes that this is a James Bond film. No humor, no Q, no witty lines, lack character development and little leeway for James Bond to breathe and unwind and be "James Bond." Everything that we love about James Bond has been stripped away and all is left is a boring generic film that will be etched out of mind.

Danial Craig is fitting for the role and I hope his third outing as James Bond is more reminiscent of what we love of the franchise than this garbage. The franchise prospered as long as it did because of the character, James Bond. Many film makers tried to adapt this character's charisma in their films but they could only be one James Bond. Though their direction is promising, they should look back at Casino Royale, Goldfinger, For your Eyes Only, and The Living Daylights to remember what James Bond was and should be and not stray away from the key characteristics of what makes James Bond film, fun.
1/10
Absolute puerile nonsense
notsabadz30 December 2013
If you like films with the tiniest of plots, and a scene change every second of the film then this is for you.

It's the worst film I've ever had the misfortune to witness, and can only imagine it would be only of interest to those who are very immature or of infant school age, or suffer from acute Attention Deficit Disorder.

Avoid especially if you suffer from any form of epilepsy.

Bring back Bond wherever he is.

I'm sure Ian Flemming is turning in his grave.

I know I will be.
1/10
No good Bond
tevil7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yesterday i saw the new JB in my Cinema. The Beginning was good Action (Carhunt), then there was some good Time with the Boathunting. But there is no technical Engineering Department ("Q" ...), no good Interaction JB with the Bondgirl. The Storyline is sometimes curious. The Details in Bregenz (Austria) where not nice. They colored a British Car number plate with Austrian Colors, so that was very, very bad. Looks like no good research. I went to Cinema yesterday with pleasant anticipation. I went home dissatisfied!

Sadly this is a real awful Bond Movie in my opinion.

If it is no Bond, it's a medium good Action Movie.
Not a Bond Film
wireflydavid2 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was not happy with Casino Royale however since I had free tickets I went to see the next one on the off chance it would be better and help to change my option on this current era of Bond.

It didn't. It couldn't. It is unquestionably the absolute worst Bond movie ever made! As an action movie it is only so-so. I didn't go to a Bond movie to see a worse than average action flick starting the new Rutger Hauer.

It bothered me the opening gun barrel was moved to the very end of the movie.

The opening sequence promised to be a riving chase but the cameras jittering around and all of the cars looking alike made it impossible to be involved in following it. Opening credits and theme song were a wash. Nothing good to report there either, except that it did end.

Speaking of music the incidental music through out the movie was the worse by far in many years. I don't know how that could be since the same guy who did this was behind the Bond music since 1997.

The movie follows Casino Royale directly by a matter of hours. This turned out to be a massive mistake. This story requires that we care why this Bond is so upset and acting so ugly. The producers and director assume that Casino Royale had made us care, well it didn't. I don't care one wit about the traitorous Vesper and neither should Bond. Bond being broken up because of her is a stupid idea and seeking revenge for her suicide is completely stupid. Need I repeat that, her Suicide. The only one to blame is Vesper. This is so unlike the death of Bond's wife it is not even worth mentioning in the same breath. There at least with that story there was a reason for Bond to be upset at her Murder and seek revenge. In this one I wanted to sit him down and tell him to strengthen up and fly right, she was noting to you now snap out of it! M should have been the one to have the talk with him, instead she had to drive home the already over done plot premise.

Craig performance in this movie was more wooden than before, seemingly capable of only two looks and stomping around like a miniature terminator deserving more of the Sarah Connor Chronicles than the big screen name sake.

The plot was stupid but then a plot was necessary to make this movie. Water Rights and the hostile takeover of a forsaken spit of land. I say forsaken because that is how the movie made it look. I don't know where it is and I don't care, just as I don't care why Bond is crashing through walls and flipping bikers by hand from a dead stop. The primary bad guys, The Quantum group for all appearances is a lame rip off of the original SPECTRE. Speaking of lame rip off the movie is full of them, from the Bourne trilogy to the old Bond movies. I can forgive the Bond movie rip off, rather I would except I can't because they were done so badly.

I've seen better spy drama on USA television network. I would recommend checking that out over this movie series.

I gave it only one star because it still supposed to be a Bond movie. As an action movie it might deserve a 3 or 4 star. However the fact that is was a Bond Film trumps all.

I hope for the next one they go back to being Bond movies. Bring back Sean Connery if they have to, at least he'd be fun to watch.
5/10
You only need one shot … Quantum of Solace
jaredmobarak13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, remember when Casino Royale came on the scene and gave the Bond franchise a shot of adrenaline that no one expected? How Daniel Craig brought grit and realism to a series slowly finding its way into parody and gadgetry, trying to make up for the fact its leading man was getting on in age? Not only was it a great Bond/action film, but a great film period—full of quality performances, action, intrigue, intelligent scripting, and plenty of eye-candy for the men and ladies alike. To top all of that, the next installment, Quantum of Solace, brings in a high quality director, (in my opinion at least), in Marc Forster. A visual genius and master of tone and drama, I was very much excited. However, after viewing the finished work, I finally find myself agreeing with the many people perplexed and annoyed by the cryptic title. Granted, not because its obtuse, I actually dig it a lot for that reason, but because it wasn't as appropriate as Casino Royale Part 2. That is exactly what this film is, a short (106 minutes) story tying up loose ends from the previous one, allowing Bond to get revenge, to get information on Mr. White, to bolster his relationship with the Americans, and to progress him into the ladies man we know him to be, one who doesn't let lingering feelings get in the way of the job. Yes, the flash is fun, the explosions and running invigorating, but in the end, it all just leads us to the next segment in Craig's adventures … a bridge to what will hopefully be great and nothing more.

Forster does a bang up job with a script that includes, for long stretches, sequences devoid of language. The choreography is very intricate and shot clearly despite the quick cuts and shaky-cam kinetic motion. I loved the fall from a roof top onto scaffolding, the depth and length that they fall with the camera following is impressive, and although it hitches, probably showing that it wasn't a real long take, it still put a smile on my face. Also, the giant fire set-piece during the climax has some great shots, especially those involving breaking glass, which is a common occurrence throughout and handled well each time. I just wish Paul Haggis and company gave him a little more to do with the story itself. It all becomes a way for Bond to get revenge on the man that put Vesper into the situation she was in, making her become a double agent, in effect working for the ever-elusive Mr. White. It's his story that I desired here, but unfortunately we'll have to wait a little longer for that one.

So, basically we have a villain in Dominic Greene, (a nefariously good Mathieu Amalric, even though he is for the most part wasted in a thankless role), pretending to investors to be an environmentalist when in fact he is working with third world nations to put a stranglehold on oil … or is it another liquid he covets? Either way, it struck me that, with some snide remarks about the American dollar, the oil business being carved up by the US and China, and the overall "green" theme of Greene's front, the writers were trying too hard to push a liberal agenda. Maybe they weren't, though; maybe I was just so bored with the lack of substance in Bond's search for revenge that what ended up sticking were all those ideas and political sentiments. Unfortunately that is what stuck. Instead of giving Amalric some backstory and structure, he becomes a pawn, a creation put in the middle of Mr. White and Vesper Lynd's ex-boyfriend who was "kidnapped" in the previous film. He is a token shell of a baddie that gives Bond something to play against until he can move along to the big fish, his quest for blood soon quenched.

Along the same lines comes Camille, the Bolivian Special Forces agent out for a little blood herself. Olga Kurylenko does a good job, balancing the sex appeal with the undercover agent well; being a Bond-girl by not being a Bond-girl. But again, she serves mainly to mirror Bond's own quest and be the foil to whether he will continue killing prospective captives for information without remorse or if his wits will again be restored. At least Giancarlo Giannini's Mathis and Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter bring some important plot-points to the forefront in their five minutes of combined return screen time; it's as though the small roles were more integral to the overall story than the ones we saw every second of the way.

What Quantum of Solace truly brings to the table is action, action, action. Daniel Craig is James Bond; the guy is a machine and my new personal hero. Besides all the injuries and partially lost finger during filming, the film itself shows the scars and bruises he must have experienced. This guy is throwing his body against walls, through glass, and running like a mad man. You cannot fault the pace and abundance of chase scenes or the carnage they leave in their wake. It all begins with a high-powered car chase without any explanation at all … and none is needed. You can see the wheels turning behind Craig's eyes, the last glimpses of emotion and love draining from his consciousness as the job gradually takes over. So, while the film can't stand on its own, it is a very nice bookend to the tale from a couple years back, one that many thought too long and drawn out, things you won't be saying upon exiting the theatres this year. Hopefully it's not a sign of things to come, though, and the next chapter will bring us another stellar story on the journey to find out exactly who Mr. White is and what his organization is capable of.
7/10
Time Has Been Kinder To This Than I Expected
david-meldrum3 October 2021
With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see this as an ill-starred film. Sandwiched between two of the best in the whole series, written amidst a writer's strike, stitched together almost patchwork like as much by force of necessity as design, the memory most of us have of this is as a mess that's best forgotten. But its recent mini-renaissance is not entirely undeserved as I revisit it with the freshness borne of not having gone near it since its initial release. Yes, it is incoherent; but there's more to recommend than popular memory might allow. This Bond is angry, bitter, vengeful and grieving - a state of mind well-served by Craig's performance and his largely clipped, almost minimalist dialogue. Some of the action sequences are startlingly brutal - almost cruel at times, again in keeping with Bond's psyche; and despite some occasionally poor VFX, there are other technical aspects that shine - production design, sound design and especially the sharp, sometimes very effectively shocking editing. It's no masterpiece and the favourite Bond movie of very few, but time has been kinder to it than I expected and it finds a deserved place in the arc of series' best Bond.
5/10
Poor
zetes16 November 2008
The second movie of the new Bond franchise, following the very successful Casino Royale. It's pretty clear that I'm not at all a Bond fan. I kind of like the modern Bonds, the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig ones, as mediocre action movies. That's all I see them as. I see the old ones as mildly amusing camp at best, completely inept Hitchcock rip-offs at worst. Casino Royale was a slightly above mediocre action movie. Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is just a plain bad one. It's ineptly directed by a man who's never been close to an action picture before, and its editing is some of the worst I've ever seen. For the life of me, I could barely ever tell what was going on in the action sequences. I don't know if I like Craig as Bond, even in the last one. He's too brutish and nasty. He lacks the suaveness that is supposed to define Bond. There are a couple of things I did like about Quantum of Solace: 1) The theme song is the best one since GoldenEye. I'm a White Stripes fan, and very much liked Jack White's song. Alicia Keys' presence was unnecessary, however. 2) I like the Bond girl, Olga Kurylenko. Not only is she very hot, but I like that the women of the last two Bond movies had a little more substance than the objectified Bond girls of the past. 3) The bad guy, played by Mathieu Amalric: I never connected to his character in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, because he struck me as a sniveling scumbag. In Quantum of Solace, he plays a sniveling scumbag, so he fits the role perfectly.
5/10
Quantum of boredom.
marcotiero3 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very weak storyline. A villain with aspirations of World Dominance (Actually, just Bolivia) buying up what appears to be useless land (akin to Lex Luthor in Superman 1978) but it turns out, it's in order to control the water. The Villain wants to control the water of Bolivia (not the oil of most of Europe like King in "The World is not enough"). This, in itself makes you think, is that it? That's the threat?

We have one of the worst Villains in Dominic Greene (up there with Drax on the zero charisma and menace), Merano who wants to be President of Bolivia (only has about 3 scenes and the only thing menacing about him is that he likes to rape).

The CIA and British Government now seem content to turn a blind eye to the villains, all is forgiven with Mathis, the Bond girls are 1 dimensional and expendable and Bond just seems to be on a rampage (instead of cool, calm, collected).

Really, the only thing I liked about this one was more screen time for Dame Judi Dench who had a lot more to do in this one and brought more to her portrayal of M than she has done in the purvis entries.
5/10
Disappointing (— they couldn't afford a decent cinematographer and script?)
BibChr15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mainly I saw Q of S because I'd enjoyed the last movie, and Craig was a very good Bond - probably next-best behind (duh) Connery.

Aigh. Don't bother.

For starters, the cinematography was TERRIBLE. Were I the stunt coordinator, I'd be *ticked*. What's the point in choreographing great sequences, if nobody can understand them? It would be like creating a beautiful painting, then having the idiot curator display it in a dark corner behind a ladder.

To wit: Great action scenes (I guess), lots happening (judging from the sound) — but the camera work was jumbled and oversliced and overspliced and confusing, and all the great stunts and work was WASTED. At the end of one sequence, I actually asked my wife, "What did that guy die of?" Also, very confusing plot, not about much. You'd better have seen Casino Royale five minutes previously, and committed it to memory. Even then... not sure.

And oy! TERRIBLE villain.

He's this limp, languid, licorice-whip French guy with NO personality and NO motivation, right? He just whimpers around. The girl doesn't get killed when he tries to have her killed - he whimpers. She shows up yet again at a party - he whimpers and squirms and rolls his eyes. Sheesh. It's like... like Lindsey Graham as evil mastermind.

But wait, it gets even dumber.

Fast-forward. A HANDCUFFED Bond just overcomes, what, FOUR equally-trained fellow-agents in an elevator? No problem! Whump, whump, whump, he's free.

But then this WIMP of a NOTHING of a bad guy has an extended fight with Bond, as if they're equally-matched, fights and fights as he whines and whimpers more loudly — and then he ends up conscious and alive! Oh. My. Gosh.

So, tip to future evil masterminds: there's your problem. Stop sending your heavily-muscled, heavily-armed, martial-art-trained henchmen after Bond. Pick the guy who's over there going through the latest Good Housekeeping. He'll have a real shot at beating Bond.

I didn't hate the movie, but I was disappointed. All that money they had to use, not well-spent.

And Michael Medved's right, there's some anti-American and pc-stink about it also.

Dudes, get a story, get a good writer, get some FUN locations, and for pete's sake get a CAMERAMAN, and do the next one right.
2/10
This is not a 'proper' Bond film ...
andrew-huggett26 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me say straight away that I think Daniel Craig makes an excellent gritty James Bond - however, the problem with this film (the second 'Bond' in this new 're-invented' official series) is that the classic elements that make up a 'proper Bond film' are all missing. Instead they've been replaced with a totally incomprehensible plot, unnecessarily fast and trendy film editing, below average titles and abysmal music.

The classic gun-barrel sequence has been stuck at the end of the film instead of at the start (before the pre-titles teaser sequence where it belongs). Why for God's sake? One of the most exciting, heart-pounding cinema experiences was to settle down, see the curtains pull back, hear the Bond theme and see the gun-barrel move across the screen. You then KNEW you were about to be treated to a larger than life, escapist film experience. It now seems the producers just want to make things as different as possible from the original series. While I felt Casino Royale was quite good and ended with the James Bond music and a classic Bond quip - and I thought to myself, great - they've now set the scene for Daniel Craig and with the next film we'll be getting back to more the old 'Bond style' rather than a routine action clone of the Bourne series (nothing wrong with the the first Bourne film - I thought that was excellent by the way). How wrong I was - this film was simply terrible. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but sadly we're never going to get a true Bond film experience again because the ingredients just aren't there any more - we need a proper larger than life villain, John Barry's music, Maurice Binder's graphic design, Ken Adam's set design and of course a few throw-away lines and some sexual innuendo!

Don't get me wrong - the original Bond series was getting far too silly with invisible cars, ridiculous CGI surfing and John Cleese - but now the producers have gone too far the other way - and created another run-of-the-mill action film - fair enough - but please at least give us a decent plot we can actually follow!
5/10
little to no indication this is even a Bond film.
deimos47ca25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To make a Bond movie is actually quite difficult. Its a very fine line between action, suspense, one liners and Bond suave without going over the top and pulling a "Die Another Day" (which is credited with sickening Brosnan with so much cheesiness that he stopped doing them).

Quantum of Solace starts of nearly instantly after Casino Royale, as Bond slaloms tunnel traffic, trying to deliver Mr. White - infamous MI6 mole - for interrogation by M. And of course in an amazing spectacle of crunching trucks, and falling pursuit cars, Bond escapes unscathed. Unfortunately, just as the "cargo" is delivered, an accomplice not only sets Mr White free but hurts M.

A fast paced chase over and under the Italian ceramic tiled roof tops ensues ending with a dramatic upside-down grab for guns as Bond once again comes out a split second ahead in a heart gripping duel.

Afterwards, we are reminded of Bond's steely resolve to not feel a thing for Vespa. With help from Mathis Bond is on the trail of the gang who hurt mom - ie M. Arriving in Haiti, he assumes identity of an inside man, only to quickly discover he supposed to assassinate the beautiful Camille. After their quick fight, Bond follows her to discover Greene working at the docks with a Bolivian General at some no doubtingly nefarious plot to control "it". After a very long boat chase we also discover that Camille, after nearly dying in a tragic fire when young, is seeking to avenge death of her family by killing the General.

Unfortunately, this is also where things don't just turn confusing, rushed, or poorly directed, but utterly pointless. Bond discovers a big meeting of Quantum at an Opera. We are to believe they are an evil organization because they are "transferring" funds, setting milestones and drafting plans. But, after taking out some backstage help, the result is some grainy pictures of the guests leaving.

Bond does get a lead, but kills every person he chases is or being chased by. Yet, he's supposed to be the good guy? The surprising revelation is that Bond kills more people, and destroys more property than all the villains and henchmen of this movie. And even M's contribution is too cliché, reprising the "cant trust him" lines from Casino Royale.

The anti climatic plot twists continue. We are introduced to some American agents who may or may not be helping Greene and Quantum. Bond does take Camille for "romantic" sight seeing plane trip that's cut short by a dog fight. And then there are sad moments where the audience is asked to shed some tears for the very poor South Americans being deprived of water.

All in all, Quantum of Solace barely resembles a Bond movie, and even barely qualifies as a good action movie on its own. Numerous key elements are missing: - there are no gadgets. Unless flip flops in the desert counts. - other than opening sequence, no showcase of exotic cars. - lamest villain ever created. - no memorable henchman. Greene's assistant provides the single comedy moment when he trips and loses his toupee. - Bond is never really hurt or in jeopardy of dying. Swerving through traffic is dangerous, and so is running or roof tops, but I cant recall any memorable stunts. - intentionally dumbed down? Like Bourne, in Casino Royale Bond was very clever, quickly pulling info from cell, tracking location, and reading other people. - no atmosphere of impending doom. Whether Bond "succeeds" or not, doesn't really seem to matter. The evil transactions the villains are plotting may take months or years. And even if Bond saves, some girl or makes water a little more affordable for the Bolivians, why should the audience care? - finally the ending, was bland at best. A hotel in the middle of the desert blows up when Bond tries to see Camille gets her revenge.

In conclusion, Quantum of Solace is kind of like Batman Begins, but where Batman has no utility belt, only shortly uses the Batmobile once early on, has no vixen to seduce him, and is up against a sleazy used car salesman who writes bad checks. Its up to Batman to save the day and ensure the good folks who can't afford a new car, get a quality pre-owned vehicle and not a lemon.

All in all, considering the moans and groans at my local theater, a very generous 5/10.
1/10
Boring.
Kdosda_Hegen4 November 2020
Possibly worst bond film. It has some action but it just doesn't have any charm or soul. It's boring, uninspired and nothing special at all.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A promising direction for the franchise; a rubbish director for the movie
lexo177011 November 2008
I wouldn't call myself a crazy fan of the Bond movies; I only own about three or four on DVD, all of them from the Connery era. I prefer the colder and murkier Fleming novels, which is perhaps why I like Daniel Craig as Bond. Pierce Brosnan was good fun but he was Connery Lite; Timothy Dalton was a good actor who behaved as though he was in a different film to everyone else; and with the Roger Moore movies, you might as well have been watching something like "Smokey and the Bandit".

So a darker, more tortured Bond is a good idea, I think, and Daniel Craig can certainly do tortured. With his boxer's face and deadpan delivery, he is just the guy to present a more realistic and three-dimensional version of the character. Strange, then, that it was partly on his recommendation that Marc Forster was hired to direct this movie.

Forster and his editor cut the entire film like one huge action sequence. He said somewhere how he felt that "Casino Royale" felt "too long" and that he wanted this film to be zippier. Job done, Mr. Forster. It goes by so fast you'll barely notice it. As the final titles rolled, I turned to my wife and said "Wasn't there supposed to be a story?" There is a story, at least on paper. Despite Forster's impatience with the thought of filming performances by actors, Mathieu Amalric manages to register his presence on screen as a memorably two-faced Bond villain, a scheming suit with the appearance of a scruffy, hip, eco-millionaire. The fast cutting means that the action sequences only impress - you are dazzled by them, but there is no real drama or suspense because when the cutting is this fast, there is no time to focus on what's happening to people: this Bond can jump from house to house like a lemur and take down a lift full of trained MI5 agents in a blur of kicks and punches without even breaking a sweat. I, for one, would love to see Bond chase someone in one long take, something like the celebrated chase sequence in "French Connection II" in which an out-of-condition Gene Hackman runs...and runs...and runs...after the almost oblivious Fernando Rey, getting more and more out of breath.

The story was apparently written on the fly, while shooting the previous movie, and it feels like it. The villain's lair catches fire after a single stray bullet punctures a gas line; haven't these supervillains ever heard of health and safety procedures??? For all the talk about Bond going "inward" and the franchise taking a bold new direction, this is one of the flimsiest and least involving Bond movies I have ever seen; at least the Moore movies had a sense of absurd humour. "Casino Royale" was the first Bond movie that made me actually care about Bond. "Quantum of Solace", on the other hand, is deeply frustrating: the producers, and I think Craig, want it to be more realistic but the director doesn't pause for long enough to reality to catch a breath. The result is a grim and uninvolving cartoon.

I suggest that next time, the Bond people should get a proper screenwriter to sit down and write a proper script, and then they should replace Marc Forster with a director who is not going to think that he's above all this Bond movie nonsense and that the characters aren't worth taking seriously.
5/10
There's no solace for my £12.50!
gturemen5 November 2008
I'll keep it nice and short for you. I'm a keen movie-goer and I'd like to think think that I have an above-average IQ. However I did not understand this film, and I heard the same comment from a lot of people! I thought Casino Royale was bad, but it sort of grew on me a little bit after a few watches. But this is something else. I had really big expectations of this film, as I'm a big fan of Marc Forster's. Obviously I was even more disappointed that he of all people has managed to make one of the worst Bond movies ever!

Then there's the usual abundance of sponsors' goods of course! Mobile, laptops, cars etc... It's more like watching an extended commercial than a movie! Overall... Big disappointment!
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Just so boring!!
dilloncamp19 April 2021
I'm only giving this a five because Olgas Character wasn't a typical helpless Bond girl.

Im trying very hard to like these movies, but honestly, they're just so boring!!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
That difficult second movie...
The_Movie_Cat9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was one of those people that got to feel smug after always giving Daniel Craig more than the benefit of the doubt before Casino Royale. He was great in that, and he's great in this... or at least, he is when his stuntman gives him chance to appear.

I kept being reminded of the second Indiana Jones movie, which was really just an extended series of chase sequences threaded together with little narrative. This is Bond's Temple of Doom, just a non-stop roller-coaster with no chance to breathe... we even get a series of stunts and explosions before we've even had any real groundlaying exposition. It's a film that wants to run from the outset before even giving you time to get into the starting block... and apologies for the corniness of that analogy.

With the all new, all realistic Bour... er, Bond franchise, then it's all presented so seriously that the hyperrealism can be a little unintentionally silly at times. Falling hundreds of feet, getting in about ten lethal fights and escaping exploding buildings beyond all laws of probability are okay if your lead villain lives with ninjas in a volcano. When it's a "straight" movie then it does push it towards the limits of suspension of disbelief... in fact towards the end I kept expecting Bond to escape a nuclear blast by jumping into a fridge. The fact that the movie keeps reminding me of Indiana Jones - a franchise I don't particularly care for - is telling.

The use of violence and sexual violence against women as a means to show how evil the villains are is troubling, and the rudimentary conclusion, wrapped up in a couple of minutes, makes you realise just how little plot there actually is. Don't get me wrong, this is very well made entertainment, Craig is still on fine form and Judy Dench is for once exceptional.... a self-conscious bore with the bland skincare commercial Bond, she shines with this sixth incarnation. It's fast, it's pacy, it's always watchable and there are glimmers of depth, but it's never going to be anyone's favourite. Still better than any Bond film since at least the 80s though...
1/10
Why?
gupor15 November 2008
I remember when Casino Royale came out, Daniel Craig was facing the critics for accepting the role of this British super spy and he simply answered:" Go see the film and then tell me what you think!" Now Mr. Craig, you tell me why would I do that? To increase the numbers in your favor? I watched Casino Royale on a borrowed DVD and to me Bond died with Pierce Brosnan. I don't see any reason why should I go to see a Bond movie with an actor who has nothing to do with Bond.

And another question for you Mr. Craig: Have you had a look in the mirror before accepting this role? You should realize that there are some actors who are not suitable for certain roles and you are one of them. Clive Owen, Gerard Butler and Hugh Jackman refused the role because they didn't feel they would be able to do it. They were chosen by the producers before you and in my opinion they are far more better fitted for a James Bond film. If you don't want to completely destroy this franchise, please don't do another one.
not worth any Bond fan's time
green_bike25 July 2011
A total disgrace to the franchise. I don't care how Bond is filmed, this movie looked like an over-sleeked ad, with the light effects on the car and the monochrome palette but truth is: who cares? I didn't want a Wong Kar Wai art movie! I wanted Bond, and he's totally ridiculous here: he's in love (LE SIGH), he seeks revenge (SIGH AGAIN), he's dirty and never proper (blood-stained shirt under a tuxedo, who are you trying to impress?) and leaves a corpse in a dump. Olga Kurylenko is the only good thing to look at but she misses the flair and femininity of a bond girl in my opinion. I don't care for khakis and guns. Add to that the fact that Bond is...in Bolivia and Haiti!! Now I feel as if I were watching World vision: ruins!!! Everywhere!

Where is the glitz and the glamour? Why the hell would I watch (and enjoy watching) semi-formal receptions in ruinous hotels?

The movie is totally lifeless, the two small and supposedly humorous lines of the movie (""She's sea-sick and...yeah whatever) are delivered in the manner of a dead fish and sink the movie. Pitiful. Bond and M share no connection, which may have been the only movie-saviour.This movie is basically crass in a Tiffany box: colourful or colour-matching scenes to impress the viewer and make him forget about the lousy settings, the pointless roughness of the protagonist, the paper-thin dialogues and the overall lack of sophistication in the movie (I mean: a rape scene? Please..)"
5/10
Endless unrealistic action and not enough plot.
paulmamak31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale reinvented the Bond franchise to give bond back some dignity by digging the franchise out of an ugly hole. Sadly, the franchise seems to be digging itself back into the hole, by having endless action sequences with little in terms of a strong plot.

The film is meant to follow straight on from where Casino Royale finished, yet it seemed as though Bond had entered a completely different world. Although the storyline managed to involve familiar faces, such as Mr. White, Felix Leiter, Mathis, and a photo of Vesper Lynd, the plot and acting was so weak that it did not live up to being a sequel. The action sequences performed were too unrealistic and blurry that seemed to be a take of the Bourne franchise, but in this case was badly done. Unlike Casion Royale, Bond was less humanised, which was the reason why Casino Royale was so widely praised, instead it had Bond acting too much like a Jason Bourne, constantly rampaging across different locations giving him more of a 2D persona with little done to emphasise his reason for action. The acting was another floor, Craig did his best to bring back the his original interpretation of Bond, but the plot made it impossible for him to do so. The rest of the characters just seemed to be there to keep the plot flowing. However, Olga Kurylenko deserves appraisal for her performance as the long suffering victim, who has done everything to gain vengeance on the culprits who did this to her. Yet, her character development was also suppressed by the poorly constructed plot. The film ends with a totally unoriginal climax, involving the fight scenes and explosions at the villain's headquarters. Furthermore, it has Bond gaining his vengeance for the loss of Vespa by the weakest possible circumstances, resulting in him going back to his own ways.

Overall, the film did very little to carry the franchise and should really have stayed true to how Casion Royale was depicted.
9/10
Sorrows of Quantum
prudhoeboy1 October 2021
This film is far better and much more stable than Casino Royale because it allows Daniel Craig to work within his own talents. He doesn't have the poise of either Brosnan, Moore or Connery, but is in far better shape. The character development is healthy and the pace moves along nicely without being to frenetic. It's close to License to Kill in look and feel but done much better without 80s cheese. It pays lip service to Casino Royale as a sequel but basically ditches CR standing on its own. The Bond women really helped this movie along and allowed Bond to be Bond without ball bashing and hen pecking. The movie also doesn't gross you out with gratuitous noir scenes. The title is an obvious play on words and very clever hinting at real world plots. Add to that his fighting skills and being in far better shape than his predecessors, and you have a Bond that is back in business. Notice the cheer leaders rated this one lower because they had already bought the farm on the re-boot let down and this movie was better. This movie doesn't score a 10 though because being better than License to Kill still isn't saying alot and the theme song did not sell the movie title and was not that catchy.
5/10
A thorough disappointment
charlesdchurchill31 October 2008
I felt as though the action, acting and cinematography are of a high standard, however the story line was a little unfocused. There was a lack of substance to the script and nothing really lead onto the next scene, a very scattered story line with too many characters in such a small space of time. Craig played Bond as brutal as in Casino Royale, which I felt needed to be reverted back to the smooth Bond previously seen in the series. The only characteristics of the movie that could class it as a Bond movie are the names of the characters; no Q, no Bond cars, no real evil villain. We've had Bond finding himself in Casino, now let him be Bond and not Bourne.
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Casino Royale: Part II
K3nzit28 December 2019
'Quantum of Solace', or 'Casino Royale: Part II' as I like to call it, because it takes place only a few minutes after the ending of the last 007 movie. That is why I truly recommend to watch them as one big movie. Also because this one is not really that good on its own. The bad acting by Olga Kurylenko takes the rating down a bit as well. But as said - great if you watch it right after 'Casino Royale'.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace - a disappointing mess
tturwitz7810 November 2008
To give this film an "Awful" rating might seem overly harsh, but to me this is truly one of the worst movies, not to mention greatest disappointments ever. I hardly ever walk out of movies, but this time I needed real will power to remain in my seat.

After the excellent "Casino Royale", my hopes were high that the follow-up would at the very least offer good action entertainment. On might argue that the new interpretation of Bond in Casino Royale was more Bourne than Bond, but irrespective of that it was a solid piece of action craftsmanship with a decent plot.

In contrast, "Quantum of Solace", is a horrifically inept attempt at creating "action" through music-video-style editing. The entire movie is chopped into 15 to 60 frame cuts (each one to two seconds, a new camera angle). A highly annoying practice that greatly distracts you from following the plot (had there been one of any merit). Even the dialog scenes suffer from these continuous cuts. Try this: while watching the movie, count "one, two, three..." for every scene. See how often, if ever, you get past two. To add insult to injury, the action scenes have been shot with a number of shaking hand cams that, in conjunction with the constant cuts, produce a complete visual mess.

The shooting and editing ruin this film to such an extent that script, plot, dialog and character development hardly matter. Just as well since all are remarkably poor. Never have Bond characters been more one-dimensional and wooden, feeling more like computer game characters than real people.

Quantum of Solace is a sad example of form over substance, and very bad form over virtually no substance in this particular case.

Maybe Marc Foster was trying to do something "new" for the sake of being different. Maybe he thinks that a multitude of fast cuts and shaky shots equals "action". He's wrong.

What he has created can best be described as a 106 minute long MTV Video of a computer game.

What a shame!
6/10
James Bond will lose out to the Bournes and Transporters
ramchandar_gl17 November 2008
I didn't have high expectations watching this movie since I already saw a few reviews before watching and I was not disappointed - by the the reviewers :-)

To start with the story itself was a bit of a let down. While 'Water' is indeed a big issue in the real world, somehow I couldn't feel the 'thirst' leading to the climax. The story seemed to waver in many directions before suddenly focusing Water and caring about the people of Bolivia.

The villain was the other let down. That actor just couldn't build up to someone that needs a Bond to bring him down. His personality too didn't suit a villain.

And lastly about Bond himself. To me Bond is about Charm, Girls and most importantly Gadgets. Somehow I don't think Daniel Craig could replicate a Pierce Brosnan with Charisma or Girls. Whatever happened to the Gadgets? Although watching Pierce Brosnan single handedly take down an entire army base of Russians didn't look realistic but it did look like Bond. Thats what I love about him. Its not to say that Daniel Craig doesn't make a Good 007. I think Casino Royale proved that he has it in him to make a great Bond. But I think its time we saw Bond do a more sophisticated and swashbuckling action. For the rest we have Bourne and Transporter!!
4/10
The Bourne identiy... oh wait
Hayden-860559 January 2021
James Bond returns yet again in this film which no one really likes that much, the theme song is decent but not impressive and the action is too fast paced and employs too much shaky cam.

Acting wise it ranges from poor to good, Craig is fine and Judie Dench is great to watch. However, Bond girl Camille played by Olga Kurylenko is forgettable and the main villain Dominic Greene plated by French actor Mathieu Amalric is a rather pathetic figure, not a James Bond supervillain.

The locations are dull and I can't remember any good one liners from Bond or a memorable and exciting action sequence, it's a completely forgettable and painfully average action movie and definitely placed near the bottom as one of, if not the worst Bond film.

4/10: Extremely disappointing Bond film
7/10
Bond 2: Electric Boogaloo
thesar-219 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having the rebooted James Bond series, 'Casino Royale,' become my favorite of all Bond movies, it was going to be tough to follow it up with the first direct sequel: 'Quantum of Solace.' At first, I didn't like it, hardly at all. The plot was all over the place – OK, I admit, I really couldn't follow it, the first go-around, there were a lot of dry scenes, and the rejuvenated Bond took leaps backwards with his sexual encounter with a "Strawberry Fields." My second and now third viewings, I enjoyed it a lot more. I suppose its one that grows on you. Sure, nowhere near as good as 'Royale,' heck, not in the top Bond films, but still enjoyable.

It's 10x more gritty and dark than 'Royale,' yet I loved the feel and style of the film. Thankfully, they did fix one of 'Royale's biggest problems by shortening this down 37 minutes. Also, the cinematography, landscapes, locales, fight scenes were all well done.

The yellow-toothed villain left a lot to be desired, and even though they needed to give the audience the typical Bond Bimbo, I still cringe at reducing this mature Bond to a 15-year-old.

Taking place within the hour of the 'Royale' finale, Bond is bent on revenge (despite his consistent attempts to state otherwise) and in turn taking down the big-evil corporation known as 'Quantum.' You don't get the whole story on them, so I suspect this isn't the first sequel to be made in the Bond movies, though I wish it were. Move on. Get Bond back where he needs, fresh missions. (I think they did state that's where it's going in the final shot.) I liked the song, though, listening to it outside the movie, it seemed very edited in the title sequence. I still think the story has a lot to be desired, but still recommended for action/suspense buffs.
1/10
Not a Bond Movie
elhombremagnifico8 November 2008
Having just seen this film all I can say is I'm ambivalent about it. Yes, it is an exciting action film, but it's not a Bond movie. RIP James Bond.

No gadgets. One of the best things I like about Bond films are the gadgets!! No corny witticisms. What a disgrace.

No Bond music until the end. Now they're taking the Mickey.

And no classic opening sequence. Appalling.

No MoneyPenny. No Q. Arghhhhh!!! This would be a good film if it hadn't supposed to be a Bond film, but because it is supposed to be a Bond film, it just makes me angry that they've dropped everything that makes a Bond film, especially the gadgets.

Very disappointed overall.
7/10
OK, but not as good as CR (or Bourne for that matter)
pvd00727 October 2008
just saw QOS at a press screening here in Zurich. First of all, the film is OK, the actors are all fine chosen. Craig is delivering. I even liked the song (after hearing it a few times before, I got used to it and now think its one of the best).

I didn't like the action sequences. Nice ideas but they used way to fast editing. it is very hard to follow. they are trying to copy the Bourne style without success. Some of the (action) ideas look like they have been copy pasted right out of Bourne II or III. No gun barrel sequence ( it is now clipped on to the very end). The title sequence looks second rate.

Still, the story is good (nothing new though) , the opera sequence is nicely done, music from David Arnold is very good.

It feels like the middle part of a trilogy. It also feels a bit like LICENCE TO KILL but not as violent. They could have chosen a stronger end. more of a cliffhanger so to say.

But I love Bond and this one is still better than any of the Brosnan Bonds. 8 out of 10.
3/10
Worst Bond Movie Since Octopussy
jed-estes14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to this movie hoping, praying for nothing short of a masterpiece. I thought all of the ingredients were there from the last movie Casino Royale to make this finally the Bond movie with the biggest scope and rage of the series. But I was wrong. What on saw on the screen was a movie that could not hold it's camera steady and every shot was less that 2 seconds long. There were also hardly any wide shots to show to the audience what they were actually seeing on the screen during fights scenes. This made everything seem unrealistic like the were trying to hide the stunt men with how tight and fast the scenes went. Where as I believe Craig did most of his stunts if I were him I would angry that it was shot this way because it takes his presence out of the film and makes it look cheap. The villain in the film was the weakest since the no names in Octopussy graced the screen. I hatted that they killed Mathes off and it seems was too sentimental for the hard nosed Bond that Craig plays. Also Felix Liter seemed like an after thought forced into the film rather than as essential piece to the equation, which is a pity because that character has great potential that will hopefully be realized in the next installment after we get rid of Marc Foster from behind the camera. Foster is my main antagonizing point against the film, I say this because Craig holds his part of the bargain up nicely and grew as Bond even in this crappy film he was surrounded in. Foster just should stick to art fair and leave action to vets like Martain Cambell who knows what he's doing, case in point Casino Royale and Goldeneye. Some thing I did like about the movie were I believe Judi Dench and Craig have remarkable chemistry and I can't wait to see it grow in better movies. I also liked the idea of the Quantum organization,0 which is just SPECTER for the modern age and I hope that Bloefield from the early movies is the head of this and that this was just a lead in like DR. No. All in all I think this movie should be viewed but know that it is a pale imitator of Casino and everything before it. Pray that some one makes a better Bond movie next time.
4/10
Quantum of b#ll#cks
jonnymills9 March 2013
Poorly conceived, and sadly predictable failure of a film. This is what happens when there is no clear plan, no story and no tension. "By numbers", or "dot-to-dot". If that was the case then it just goes to show that most Bond films require, and have benefited from, excellent attention and film-making talent. This is how NOT to do it, although filming during a writers' strike shows that colossal sums of cash are what dictates how mainstream films are planned, and how the money men will never be creators. There is too much to criticise here without going into details; a sad state of affairs and a lost opportunity. Worst Bond film ever.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What the?. . . .
butnowihatecaraccidents1 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When did James Bond become Jason Bourne? James Bond does not run around for, give-or-take, two hours, chasing people and then engaging in fist fights. He investigates, gambles, seduces the women, finds the outrageous hide-out, sneaks in, gets captured, the master mind reveals the whole plan, there's a countdown, Bond escapes, defeats the villain usually with a good one-liner, and then makes it out just in time with the girl. And has at least one useful gadget. You will find none of this here. There is no clever (outrageously so)hideout, merely a dictators compound that is so easy to locate and enter that Bond walks right in. Moneypenny? Who is Moneypenny? Q? Or rather his successor: R? Nope, Bond doesn't need gadgets, he likes his exercise. The women? Two, both with normal names. The Bond charm? He's too busy looking dower. The master plan? He's gaining control of Bolivia's water supply. Huh. Ooooookay then. This is not revealed until we've been subjected to horribly shot hour-and-a-half of Bourne style action scenes. It is mentioned and then forgotten. James Bond was never an action hero, and he never should be!! He is a sly, clever playboy who just happens to be a spy. The violence and mayhem just get in the way of his good time. He does it so he can get back to the foreplay and his martini.
4/10
dayum painful sometimes but enjoyable
mattenzo113 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK the first thing i NEED to state is that the fight scenes are awful, well not exactly the fight scenes but the camera work in those scenes it was so shaky and you couldn't tell what was going on IT WAS WORSE THAN CLOVERFIELD!!! there's a decent sized line between making a scene feel busy and exciting and making it UN-watchable but apparently the people who made this film needed glasses or the camera man was VERY drunk. they have changed a lot about bond in the Daniel Craig era and to be honest i don't really like it for one where is Q and where are the gadgets and cars and witty remarks for me that is what makes bond so enjoyable.

also I'm trying not to be harsh but is it me or are the bond girls getting worse?!? there is a woman who isn't really very sexy (she is quite pretty just not sexy) and a woman who has a very over-the-top British accent that just made me cringe.

the plot was poor and didn't really hold my attention and i pretty much wanted to text my girlfriend in the cinema while watching it.

this film is no golden-eye (which i feel is the best bond film hands down).

bond has turned corporate by instead of advertising things that the average person dreams about e.g. Ferrari's, rolex watches, Aston martins and tuxedos. this movie instead advertises Nokia phones and suits that make bond look like a gangster and not a charming secret agent with a licence to kill.

although i am sending quite negative waves so far i must admit i did enjoy the roof chase and the theme as the theme was wonderfully animated and the song is really good.

Daniel Craig's performance is generally good but not exactly bond-like he looks more like a football hooligan crossed with the mafia and acts the same way with general aggressive premise and no sign of the cocky wit of bond but more of a gritty darkness about him

OK i will stop talking about this film i am one person who found this film to be nothing special but please go and see this film and judge for yourself. also sorry for my grammar i can only express my feelings by writing in bad grammar lmao
5/10
Bad direction for Bond
fernloth-215 November 2008
Although loaded to concussive levels with rapid-fire edits, explosions and high impact action, the nod to story and character Casino Royale so effectively returned to the Bond series is mostly absent. Though it keeps a hard edge throughout, the implied vengeful, out of control direction Bond was pushing towards as Casino ended is never effectively communicated in Quantum of Solace. Daniel Craig makes another good turn as 007, providing a depth of character the film's writing doesn't deserve. The plot is vague and meandering, the villains are substance-less and dull and the evolution of the Bond character misses a chance to effectively detail the eventual birth of the super spy, choosing rather to wallow in dizzy, witless brutality with few glimpses of the well played humor and charm of Casino. The supporting cast is adequate, though forgettable. While a fun ride in terms of pure action, Quantum never feels like much of anything resembling a Bond film. Rather than push the character towards the witty, charming and deadly character Casino Royale was carefully molding, we step backwards into Steven Seagal territory. Many are comparing this movie to the Bourne trilogy, but even Bourne took enough time from the whirling storm of fists and edits to put together a cohesive story and characters. If this new Bond seeks to imitate Bourne, it has some work to do.
6/10
Before you watch this ...
dejeanlaw17 April 2020
... make sure you have recently watched Casino Royale. I saw this movie in the theater, over two years after I saw Casino Royale, expecting to see a regular Bond movie, and it was not. Bond movies are stand alone movies. This one is not. Much of what happened in Casino Royale is relevant to this movie, and several characters from Casino Royale also appear in this movie making it difficult to understand the rapport Bond has with them if Casino Royale is not fresh in your mind. I watched it again, eleven years later, but right after I had watched Casino Royale, and the movie worked better and the confusing dialogue made more sense. Nowhere near the best Bond movie, but a good sequel to Casino Royale.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What?
moviesleuth228 November 2008
While no one will ever credit the Bond movies (save for perhaps the last Bond movie, "Casino Royale," but only if they're feeling especially generous) for being in the least bit credible, they at least made sense. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for our beloved agent's most recent outing, "Quantum of Solace." And as much as I hate to admit it, the blame has to fall on director Marc Forster.

If you want information about the plot, look at the synopsis, because that will give you more information about the plot than I could (yes, it's that bad).

Without a doubt "Quantum of Solace" is inferior to the first "reboot" of James Bond movies, 2006's "Casino Royale." But Bond's latest adventure has one thing going for it that the last one didn't: it actually FEELS like a Bond movie. Don't get me wrong, I liked "Casino Royale," but it was so different and serious that it didn't FEEL like a Bond movie. While "Quantum of Solace" may be just as serious (if not more so), it has the same format and number of over-the-top action sequences as the predecessors (except for "Casino Royale," of course).

The acting varies. Daniel Craig has grown more comfortable with his interpretation of Bond, and isn't afraid to develop it more. Bond in this outing is angrier, deadlier, and a lot more serious. Except for one instance, sleeping with women is not his first priority. He has only one thing on his mind: finding the people behind Vesper's death, and that means getting to the new villain, Dominic Greene (Matheiu Amalric). To say that Amalric is not one of the better villains is putting it mildly. Well, to be fair, the movie doesn't really let us get to know him very well, but he's still pretty weak. Olga Kurylenko is solid as Camille, but again, not the BEST Bond girl. Everyone else is what you'd expect them to be coming from the previous movie.

I like Marc Forster, I really do. He is a terrific director, and has done splendid work with "Finding Neverland" and "The Kite Runner." If you notice, neither of those films are similar to a Bond movie (or any action movie whatsoever). That, I think, is the problem. He doesn't know what to do with the material. The film moves so fast and frenetically that it loses the viewer pretty early, and it never really gains them back (he continues the trend of action movies of unsteady camera action sequences--and doesn't do it well). Scenes work by themselves, but as a whole it is a mess. I hope this film doesn't ruin Forster's career, because that would be a shame. Just no more Bond movies for him.

Do I recommend it? It really doesn't matter because Bond is so popular that everyone will go see it regardless of how bad the word of mouth is. But I honestly don't know if I could tell someone to go see it if they were on the fence.
4/10
My Name is Bourne. James Bourne
ladymoonpictures16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loaded with spoilers; read AFTER you see this muddled mess. First, if it was a sequel that drew upon the death of Vespa, why not show some sort of flashback so we could have at least had some sort of attachment to her or the scenario? As it was, the audience don't remember her from the last movie, nor care. So, Bond was married to her? The movie jumped to this location from that location, with seemingly no real reason for it. Just like Matt Damon's Bourne and so other similar reasons. And palease! Mr. Greene is the Bond movie villain? Are you kidding? In the past, Bond movies gave rise to villains that were hell bent on taking over the world. These eccentric psychopaths that wouldn't think twice of pushing a button and watching someone drop into a shark tank to be eaten in their evil lusts to take over the world and now this? Mr. Greene reminded me of Sully, the inept crock-wanna be, who "The Terminator" said that he liked, so he was going to kill him last. A chump, yes. A Bond villain, no! I mean, did we need two movies to tell this guy's story? He wants to take over the fresh water of South America so a few Peruvian pessants won't have wash day water! (Yawn). And Bond never says, even if a bite trite, we expect and demand it, that is him saying, "My name is Bond. James Bond." Then Bond leaves him in the dessert with a can of motor oil saying that he would walk 20-miles before he drank it. Well, he did apparently drink it but then, had two bullets in him! He did that? We never find out who and guess what, who cared! This entire mess, though directed with some sort of semblance to a Bond movie suffers enourmously from a very badly written Bond movie. Finally, the title: Quatum of Solice. What was wrong with naming the movie so it made 'Bond sense' such as "Another Way to Die?" That would've followed the Bond mystique of movie naming. Instead, the newest Bond entry merely gives us a..., "Quantum Leap into Mediocrity."
6/10
A bummer
Timbo_Watching20 March 2020
Sadly this second entry of Daniel Craig as secret agent 007 is a let-down. This is quite the unforgettable film. Nothing much interesting happened here, even James Bond his charm was shown little here.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as Casino Royale. Should have been a lot better.
Nighthawk115 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The latest James Bond film is essentially attempting to mimic a Jason Bourne film in this sequel to the excellent and exciting Casino Royale which was created with the intention of rebooting the franchise. The Bond movie producers seem to have acknowledged the stunning success of the Bourne spy franchise. The makers of the latest James Bond film are evidently trying to capitalize by crafting Quantum of Solace to look and act kind of like a Bourne film. Some aspects of the Bourne films have been copied and imitated to a certain degree.

Action definitely takes precedence and priory over plot made obvious by the thin story. One of the problems with Quantum of Solace is that it focuses too little on plot, paying more attention to action that's very much in the vein of the Bourne films, brutal and intense. There's a lot of super-fast cutting, frenetic editing, dizzying motion camera shots that could give someone motion sickness and quick paced disorienting action sequences. All similar traits lifted from the direction of the Bourne films. It's very hard sometimes to keep up with what's transpiring during the fight and chase scenes because everything is happening rapidly at lightning speed. The movie doesn't give the audience a lot of time to follow what's going on. Quantum of Solace picks up shortly after where Casino Royale left off.

Most Bond cliché's from previous films are done away with. No Q, Moneypenny, gadgets etc. The movie seemed kind of shallow and lacked depth. Sort of a minor Bond outing that's mindlessly fun to watch, but pretty much forgettable and doesn't really stand out. Daniel Craig as a brooding, vengeful and conflicted is very good. He made an alright Bond film better. I like his portrayal of Bond even though I wouldn't call it as much of a revelatory take on the character, unlike in Casino Royale.

The plot isn't as important or integral to watching the movie this time around. It has to do with the same SPECTRE-like shady international criminal organization introduced in Casino Royale attempting to take control of a certain natural resource from Bolivia through manipulation and deception.

Emotionally affecting and poignant moments that helped build Daniel Craig's James Bond and other individual characters in Casino Royale are almost non-existent. The movie is all about impressing and wowing the audience with elaborate action scenes (There's one in progress as soon as the movie opens), bond girls, homages to past bond films and dry Bond one liners.

Even though I did like Quantum of Solace, finding it to be enjoyable in a mindless sort of way, for the most part I thought it was nowhere near as great, entertaining or memorable as Casino Royale.
7/10
Nice night at the cinema but not really Bond
pete_peewee_wilson2 November 2008
I know people are saying that Bond is entering a new era with new way of portraying the character, but I don't know why we need it.

I used to go to see Bond, because I remember that there was a fun magic element, ridiculous gadgets (the reason why fake Omega Seamaster watched are so popular), bad villains wanting world domination, as many double-entendres as bullets fired, un-PC Bond girl names, really all the things that Austin Powers played on, but in an action movie.

In the 'olden days', you came away from the cinema with as warm feeling that overall the world was not a bad place, but there were very bad people wanting to change that, but thanks to the UK secret service with their one-liners, fancy watches and cars with non-standard showroom extras, they were all dispatched with high efficiency for Queen and country.

That's what I want from a Bond movie.

I want to go 'wow', I want to laugh, I want to whistle the music when I head off home. If I wanted any different then I would watch my Bourne DVDs again.

Bring back the Bond we know and love. It is not Daniel Craigs fault, he acted really well. It is just the franchise is becoming a cold, emotionless action movie "sausage-machine". The latest offering, in a few week I will have probably forgotten.
2/10
No good - not impressed - quite disappointed.
ririyaka-yaka6 March 2009
The film itself is quite bad - Lot of others have commented about it here, so no point in me repeating the same thing. But what about Craig as Bond? I liked Cassino Royale and thought Daniel Craig's Bond might actually work out. But after this one I am not so sure. His Bond portrayal looks a bit too much of other JB's (Jason Bourne or Jack Baur). It may be what someone might call 'realistic' for the best secret agent in the world, a tough guy who could get beaten up, fights hard and have some human emotions etc (like anger and revenge) But the entertainment value in Bond films is not in them being realistic is it? I am beginning to miss the smooth guy Bond with the witty one-liners and of course the gadgets! No matter how ridiculous the Bond toys were, they were entertaining.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A hyper-kinetic mess.
quietman77-117 November 2008
This review will contain minor spoilers; it will not contain major spoilers, because that would require me to understand the plot far better than I did. That was one of the movie's problems, but certainly not the only one.

As others have described, Quantum of Solace begins immediately after the events of Casino Royale. Bond has captured "Mr. White," his only link to the secret organization first referenced in Casino. We find out that the organization is called "Quantum," that they appear to be some fusion of SPECTRE and the Illuminati, and that they've infiltrated (at least) MI-6 and the Prime Minister's inner circle. Beyond that, everything else is unclear, including whatever goal they were attempting to achieve in this movie.

Unlike SPECTRE from the older Bond films, Quantum has no memorable personalities. There is no Ernst Blofeld-type (who was smooth, ruthless and dangerous before he became the Dr. Evil prototype). There are no genius planners, no scary assassins, nothing. By the end of the movie, I actually would have welcomed sharks with laser beams on their frickin' heads.

Their scheme involves Bolivia, establishing a puppet government, and/or controlling the Bolivia's fresh water supply. Exactly why Quantum would want to do either of those is never made clear, nor is it clear if Bond actually foiled the scheme by the end of the movie.

The primary Bond girl has a vendetta against one of the villains, and her overall plan seems to be allowing herself to repeatedly get captured by the very people she wants to kill, with the hope that this will somehow lead to a chance to exact her revenge... or something. Beyond that, I lost track.

Beyond the vague nature of the plot, there are other stylistic problems. Bond, rather easily and quickly, identifies the members of Quantum's ruling council, and never follows up this lead - for the next movie perhaps? Other characters are introduced out of thin air, and then abruptly killed off. The lead villain, "Mr. Greene" (as opposed to "Mr. White"), is an uninteresting pseudo-environmentalist / industrialist, whose agenda is as vague as everything else in the plot.

Also, the director and editor seem to have an incurable fascination for jump cuts. Even in simple walking-through-building scenes, the jump cuts come at a rate of one every 1-4 seconds (no exaggeration, after awhile I started timing it), and during action scenes, the film begins to look like three or four barely-related movies, spliced together at random. The stunt work is very impressive, though the rapid-fire editing often makes it difficult to follow.

Daniel Craig remains a formidable screen presence, though, once again, the only emotion he's required to portray is "grim determination." For Casino Royale, this was part of the new Bond's charm, but it's becoming old.

All in all, Quantum is all style, with little substance.
7/10
Wasted potential
BruddanChrist24 November 2008
Nothing that made Casino Royale so memorable is present in Quantum of Solace. QoS's plot is ludicrously thin compared to Casino Royale's. What could have been a deeply intriguing story is hardy touched upon and left unexploited. The major events in QoS are merely excuses for Bond to kick some more ass.

Quantum's action sequences are stimulating, but far less interesting than its predecessor's. Whereas Casino Royale's action scenes were dynamic and carefully detailed, QoS's are frantic and standard. While it's obvious a lot of time and energy went into them, there's not much to show for it. The cuts are quick and the shots are hard to catch.

I, like many, fell in love with Casino Royale's James Bond. He was young and authentic, capable of failing and getting hurt (both physically and emotionally). Seeing as how Casino Royale ended at what felt like the beginning of Bond's real character development, I expected Quantum of Solace to continue that development. QoS's Bond, however, is the same emotionless James Bond audiences have been watching for almost half a century. He has no believable motivation, so nothing he does feels purposeful.

Finally, the antagonist never poses a real threat to Bond. Mathieu Amalric has a creepy look that could have been put to good use, but Dominic Greene is a painfully boring and clichéd bad guy. Le Chiffre's very presence was intimidating; I wouldn't even cross the street to avoid Greene.

Casino Royale was a powerful reboot for the Bond franchise. It abandoned the old 007 formula and established a new one, gaining a lot of fans in the process (myself included). For whatever reason, Quantum of Solace dropped the ball. While it certainly serves as fun escapism, it disappoints as a continuation of the story Casino Royale began.
3/10
Bond, bland Bond
MikesterSTLMO30 March 2009
Somewhat pleased with Craig's first outing as James Bond in Casino Royale (but not entirely sold), we took a chance with Quantum. It started out promising enough with the proverbial chase scene, but went downhill AND FAST, from there. This is unlike any Bond film that's ever been done; in fact,many will not even recognize Quantum as a Bond film at all. There is NO "Q", or gadgets, NO familiar soundtrack, NO Bond girls, NO intrigue, NO romance. What we DO get is the ever angry/beotchy "M"(Dench) and a bland, boring, and anything but suave and debonair James Bond. But in retrospect, what REALLY bugged me the most was the sporadic and frantic photography (ala Bourne Supremacy). It gave me a headache.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pointless most Boring Bond film Ever.....Quantum of Boredom!
filmtravel10112 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film almost put me to sleep with the trite boring plot that just meanders all over the place and you cant figure out if it is a Bond film, with no Bond theme music Except at the End... and it ends and you wonder ...what was the stupid story about again?

The whole movie feels like a TV series ala Alias, with build up from one chase to another from country to country ...and you realize there is no pay off..and it is a sequel which is even more irritating. They have really lost the Bond touch and are trying to reach a new audience but for me it just doesn't work..there is nothing special about this new approach and there are many other movies that are far superior like the Mission Impossible, Hit-man, Bourne Supremacy,etc series.

Daniel Craig is a great actor but there is nothing left of a Bond classic and it doesn't even come close to any Mission Impossible movies but resembles more of a copy of a wanna-be Bourne Supremacy series.. with endless amounts of 'needless' action that is just trite killings and after 30 mins you wonder.. why? and i think Bond should be renamed the Celibate killing machine Bond...there are hot woman that come and go in 1 minute with no sex except for Daniel taking his shirt off.. something already seen but no woman and at least Olga was sexy and hot in Hit-man but here is a school girl. And there are hardly any great jokes, and forget about cars.

And the opening scene is full of so many quick cuts you want to puke.. i don't really care for the Director's style but with such a horrible boring script i guess he didn't have much choice but it was a terrible opening..

I hope the next script has some more depth to it.. at least Casino Royale was entertaining and had a plot that caught even Bond by surprise.. no wonder Roger Moore is saying they have disgraced the Bond series - i Agree!...and M really needs to be replaced since running a bath just doesn't seem quite MI5 material to show an audience. I gave it a 3 only because it is a Bond film. otherwise i would have walked out and given it a 0
5/10
Boring none bond like movie
shaun700029 July 2012
I've got to say I was disappointed, I've always been a big fan of Bond but this just wasn't a Bond movie, the plot was so boring I couldn't even remember what it was.

The editing was so fast in the action sequences you didn't have time to enjoy what was happening, you couldn't even see what was going on, it was just another in one ear out the other action film that could of contained any actor, and not for the likes of the James Bond series.

The result, its on par with Die another day, boring with total blue screen over kill, their was just nothing worth remembering about it. Just watch something else, like an old bond film
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Really taking a step backwards
rorymacveigh15 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the success of Casino Royale, you'd Quantum of Solace to do nothing but keep up the brilliant work that was put into its predecessor...

Oh how mistaken we were...

This film has really taken the subtlety and class of the previous film and thrown it away in order to accommodate some of the more idiotic themes of the previous Bond films we'd hoped never to see again. All of the moronic dancing girls in the title scene, the over the top killing scenes, the ridiculous one liners, the going to bed with every girl in sight that was taken away in Casino Royale has shamefully been returned when there was so much promise that could have been done. A majority of the criticism for this film came from viewers who didn't understand the story unless they watched Casino Royale before hand. Since I've watched both that's not a problem for me, however, everything else about this movie is...

Within the first 5 seconds, you can probably tell the one fundamental flaw with this film. The camera angles are so short and flashy, I'm surprised we all haven't been reduced to gargling simpletons on the living room floor. The camera's just cannot take a scene and develop it for more than half a second. One second Bond is being chased, less than half a second later and after a dizzy flash of about 5 or 6 shots, the bad guy's car is falling off a cliff. I really cannot fathom what is going on.

Overall, this is an unmitigated mess with no real originality. So much so they even reused the gag from Goldfinger where the girl is painted in Gold, only this time she's painted in oil. I'm not sure what Skyfall is going to be like, but I hope to God it goes back to the good old ways of Casino Royale in order to rescue the Bond Franchise once again!
10/10
Excellent in terms of action
kurciasbezdalas14 December 2008
Actually if you have seen earlier James Bond movies, you'll notice that in this movie many things are ripped-off from other James Bond movies. I noticed some similarities with Goldfinger, License to Kill and some other James Bond films, so many things in Quantum of Solace were pretty predictable. I also noticed than the new James Bond lacks sense of humor. But that isn't important, because this movie has some great action sequences, which overcome most of James Bond movies. The new James Bond knows some new tricks. After 15 minutes of film, I stopped caring about plot and just enjoyed great action sequences. If you care about plot, you may be disappointed, but if you watch James Bond only to see action, then you are going to like this movie.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Magic!
jhobdell7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well as Marc Forster has frequently been quoted as saying: following Casino Royale was always going to be a tall order. A lot of people seem to have struggled with the idea of the story continuing on any and every level, from the quality of the film, to the development (or lack thereof) of Bond's character.

For me, this film was all about the psychology of the situation: that Bond has been viewed as a cold-blooded, ruthless killer only serves the aftermath of Vesper's death. The "inconsolable rage" drives him far and deep into his grief and in a darker vein than Casino Royale, it paves the way for Bond's traditional character: the serial one-night-stander trying to forget, the pithy humour masking his torment, the violence that outlets his rage, masking as duty to Queen and Country. And just for the record, if you doubt the development of Bond's character, consider both his return for the girl, whom he doesn't sleep with, his frustration at the death of Fields, and most importantly the moment of touching intimacy that he shares with Mathis.

For me, this film was never going to be about equalling Casino Royale and always about making the continuation of the story realistic and believable. In that regard I found little to fault here, from the opening chase sequence to the maturity of Bond's actions in the conclusion.

In all honesty my only gripe was the title song. If anything it was worse than the unbearable, tinny "Die Another Day" by Madonna: the only decent bit of melody was the guitar riff that only features twice within the song itself. Something better next time, please!
4/10
Not Good !
uncg200214 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Many people before me have spent a lot of time explaining what is wrong with this film, so I won't go into too much depth. The opening sequence was pointless & confusing (YES! it is possible to have a confusing car chase!!) and no pay off. No gun-barrel sequence, why? I forgave it in Casino Royale, but now I want it back. The entire movie was disjointed, hard to follow & repetitive. In CR there was a stunning foot chase, here they try to copy it not once but three times, with less than stunning results. The music... John Barry is still very much alive & in good health...just a suggestion. Gosh, nothing more to say that hasn't been said in other reviews. To sum up, I guess if CR was the modern day "Goldfinger", this is the modern day "License to Kill"
5/10
Bond loses his charm!
greptilemk6 November 2008
I saw this movie yesterday and I must say I wasn't pleased at all. Everything thing that made James Bond has been taken away from the movie and the result is that the movie has become a "standard" action flick....nothing more nothing less. If the main character wasn't named Bond....well then you didn't have a clue you were watching a James Bond title. For a bond-fan such as myself this is a real bummer.

I can't complain about the acting, M has a much bigger role in the movie and she played the part very well. I like Daniel Craig as James Bond and he plays the character very well. The villain isn't the regular villain as most people think, and that is nice to see. Let's say the bad guy has been updated to the modern day crimes.

I hate to make such a comment about a film series a really like...but after seeing the movie it left me no choice. With this last addition to the Bond-genre it looks like the directors are turning in a new road...and sadly it's a road i'm not going to follow.

If you like action-packed movies....well you are going to like were Bond is going...but to me....the genre has lost all the things that made a James Bond movie a James Bond!
Not much of a Bond movie, just lots of action and gunfire.
TxMike8 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I hate to say it, but the critic Ebert got it exactly right. This is not a very good "007" movie. Daniel Craig as James Bond is a good action hero, but 007 is not an action hero, he is the master of "cool". Ebert's review is a sort of call to restore the 007 themes to what we have come to expect, and I have to agree with him.

Olga Kurylenko is the "Bond Girl" as Camille. (She reminded me very much of Catherine Zeta Jones in "Mask of Zorro", both in looks and in voice.) She is appropriately pretty and exotic, but there wasn't any real chemistry with 007.

The evil one is Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene who is leading an illicit effort to corner the water supply in Bolivia, but when the movie was over neither my wife or I could explain what the story line was. There is lots of action, but it is hard to figure out why everyone is after everyone else.

Unusual 007 movie.
5/10
My name is Bourne! James Bourne?!
manoj-aryan3 December 2008
Bond is mourning, traumatized by love-betrayal of Vesper Lynd. He is not sleeping much, drinking hard, haunted by Vesper. He is more and more bitter, grim and murderous. There was a ring of ambiguity to her act but enough to torment for rest of his life. He needs to know. Now this should lay ground for a wired revenge picture given Bonds new writers team and creators form in fantastic Casino Royale. Blowing all that in pieces sequel Quantum of Solace is a nosedive. This is an 'action film' constantly reminds you of Bourne flicks (a touchstone for future action films someone rightfully said) not at all reaching any near of them. Biggest blame is director Marc Foster who seemed and now proved unlikely choice (Finding Neverland and Stranger than Fiction). If there is anything that engages is Daniel Craig who is still solid in this otherwise botched piece. Craig gives body and soul to his performance. Looking like hell and cruising like a mad storm, Craig is a raging bull here but sad thing is movie engages him only in fights but never pauses or shift gears in between fights to show haunting of lost love, the driving force of his vengeance, his mission. All slickness, wit and class of Casino Royale is gone instead movie throws us in galore of pointless action.
9/10
Full of action!!!
snehum14314 November 2008
This movie was wonderful!!! Daniel Craig was on point! Despite what critics say about having a blonde blue eyed guy as Bond, he is an amazing actor. Loved the story and all the action. I liked Casino Royale slightly more... but that movie just happens to be a personal fave. However, for a sequel, this movie still measured up pretty well. There were even a couple of funny scenes. There were more than enough fight scenes and explosions to keep your eyes glued to the screen. Actually wished the movie was longer... the ending simply left me wanting more! Can't wait for the next sequel to this movie!! Come on... we all know it's bound to happen. Daniel Craig has definitely made me a Bond fan!!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Less dark than it's predecessor.
SmileysWorld6 June 2009
Again,we have a somewhat darker James Bond in this film,but that is to be expected given that this is a sequel to Casino Royale,picking up right where that story left off.Visibly absent are all of the fun quips and innuendo that we all came to love the Bond series for,as the main character seems to be gravitating more toward an action hero type.That being said,the film,while dark,is somewhat less dark than it's predecessor,making it more enjoyable for hardcore traditional Bond fans.In the end,I don't think that Daniel Craig will be replacing Sean Connery as my favorite James Bond,but I do believe,against that mass of critics out there,that he is very much suited for the role.Very entertaining film.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, shouldn't call themselves a Bond fan
ga-bsi24 November 2008
I saw this movie this Saturday and I have to begin by saying that this film is absolutely brilliant! In my opinion it's about ten times better that Casino Royale, which was slow and lacked any of the usual Bond high speed storyline.

This film throws you into the world of 007 as soon as it begins, portraying him as he should be- at 400kms an hour non-stop! There is not one moment in this film where you are left bored or wondering what the hell is happening.

You're so jilted and awed by the supreme action and top notch acting, that when you walk out the movie house, it's difficult not to sway drunkenly towards the exit!

Daniel Craig is a magnificent Bond, taking us back to the day of Sean Connery's blunt and brutal 007 that shoots first and asks question later. There is not an iota of softness or glorified dancing about that they pass of as fight scenes. Everything is hand to hand, raw fighting to the very death!

Daniel Craig and everyone else involved in Quantum of Solace has pulled us from the foppish charm, and dead fish handshakes of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan's suave charm, to an action character that will survive the desert, escape from burning hotels and kill you if you even so much as think about double crossing him!
10/10
one of the better Bond films.
seanconnery_6231 October 2008
I saw the film on it's premiere here in Stockholm, and when the movie ended I was impressed. Daniel Craig is perhaps the best bond ever, his style and elegance is brilliant. The story starts of where Casino Royale ended. The plot is thin and concised compared to CR and It's plot is not near the high class of CRs plot, but still a plot that makes sense and thats good. But strong plots has never been a strong point in the bond series. Except for CR, am i right???

Although some reviewers has been criticizing the movie for not being bond, but simply being Jason Bourne and the humour is gone. I must say that i was very impressed with the movie itself and the directing by Marc Forster was better than i had expected. He's a director of dramatics, and we do get to see some character depths. The action is fast and shaky, but since i'm an Bond fan i can accept the James Bond of today, i really enjoyed the action very much. The opera sequence was top-notch.

Olga Kurylenko as Camille is good, Olga may be one of the toughest bond girls ever. Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Grenne makes a good and trustworthy act, just a simple villain with no plans of taking over the whole world, just like Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre. Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffery Wright and Gemma Arterton (poor fields) does it well. And finally Judi Dench as M, does it with excellence.

Some true Bond fans may be disappointed, due to the film's action and little dialogue compared to Casino Royale, and the Bond...James Bond line has been removed, and Q and Moneypenny does not show up. And all the gadgets are non-existent. Well, I can accept this, Otherwise we would get the same pompous mess like in Die Another Day ( the film that totally killed James Bond).

I Give Quantum Of Solace 9/10, being one of the better bond films, and please accept it for being a sequel of Casino Royale.
2/10
Quantum is a bore
eifert19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They managed the impossible. After the great Casino Royale Bond makers decided to sap even more out of what we know as James Bond making him a incredible bore. This is so far removed from other Bond film when they finally do a ham-fisted reference to Goldfinger (and later an even bigger reference to the "old" 007 films) its jarring.

The action is edited so tightly you have no idea who's doing what... and I mean every action scene. The opening car chase (yawn) you can't tell what's going on. A boat chase (yawn) ends with a boat flipping for no apparent reason (I know there was a big hook involved). A foot chase inter-cut with a horse race (so arty) shows Bond chasing a baddie. But when it gets to the end you aren't sure who's grabbing for what gun.

The big payoff scene shows a guy forcing a general to sign a lease. No kidding. It reminded me of those newer Star Wars films that featured counsel meetings.

I checked my Blackberry a few times to see how much longer the film would be. And understand I was a huge Bond nut...

This is not a good movie. It's ONLY for fan boys that will swallow anything given to them.

If this is truly part of a trilogy then the Bond producers need to right the ship before it sinks. Even fan boys won't tolerate another one of these...

What I liked: The Bond girls were fine and the acting was acceptable. Craig is good, M however is now a nagging mother. The bad guy has no bite. You never felt Bond was in danger or that the evil plot was all that threatening.
7/10
A great film - but not memorable
anifanmc16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having seen Casino Royale and praised it greatly (although I have yet to give it an IMDb seal of approval), I knew that the direction of the franchise would change for the better. Daniel Craig played a different Bond, and Judi Dench played a different M - and overall, the tone and direction of the story was different from the overblown films preceding it (we all pretend not to remember Die Another Day, but hey, it exists).

The film picks up literally right where the last film ended - with the capture of Mr. White. Within less than ten seconds we already have an action sequence involving a car chase, and only five minutes or so after that, we have an even faster action sequence with a foot-chase, a cat and mouse thing comparable to the first chase sequence from Casino Royale.

The movie starts to trip from the first scene. Although it was probably done with good intention, Marc Forster, being the director, basically turned the movie into a Jason Bourne film - which is in some ways good, some ways bad, often more the latter than the former.

First, the good. Bond is vulnerable - we can see that physically as well as emotionally. He gets scratched up, he gets hurt, he winces in pain when he jumps balconies and hits metal. He is much more human than previous Bonds, even though Pierce Brosnan certainly set a precedent by dislocating his arm in the opening sequence of The World Is Not Enough. He also manages to show just how brutal Bond is when he kills. In fact it's almost a throwback to the older Bond movies with Connery and Moore, where they would often fight an assailant one-on-one, and struggle to defeat him.

The bad, however, seems to eclipse this. Forster's habit of shaky camera handling as a "device" tends to get very annoying. It worked out a few times in the first Bourne film, and it inflated his ego into thinking that it would work everywhere. The first chase scene was almost entirely shot on a shaky camera - something which *doesn't work* for car chases. When I can barely tell if Bond is doing the chasing or being chased, there is something wrong with the scene and there is almost definitely something wrong when I can barely tell what car is getting banged up where. When I saw Bond's passenger door fly off, I couldn't tell whether it was his Aston Martin or the pursuing enemies. Forster also makes the nasty mistake of assuming that you can eliminate all semblance of smooth transition from scene to scene from a movie and replace it with hasty wipe-cuts. If the movie had better cut sequences, it would have extended it by what, five minutes? Big deal.

Which brings me to my other points of contention. The story and plot are fantastic, once fully comprehended. A megalomaniac organization reminiscent of a shadow corporation like SPECTRE wishes to control the entire water supply of Bolivia. Great, but it's poorly executed. The story progresses too fast for the audience to take it in and simmer. In fact, some of the best scenes, including the one where Mathis and Bond talk upon the plane and where M talks to Bond in the hotel room in La Paz, were good for the simple reason that they gave the audience a chance to take in story details without exposition just thrown at the viewer. It's the difference between sipping champagne and then experiencing it's flavor and downing four shot glasses of vodka to become immediately drunk.

This isn't necessarily a bad quality in a movie. It is a bad quality for a Bond movie. There are certain elements that people come to watch a Bond movie for. One is Bond's charm, which Daniel Craig certainly could portray as he did in CR, but in QS he completely eschews it save for a single scene with Agent Strawberry Fields (seriously?), the desk operative in Bolivia tasked with arresting him. Even then, it was barely touched upon. I'm not talking about sexuality - we know he has plenty of that. But even his ability to simply cause someone to melt their barriers was conspicuously absent. Another very obvious element the movie missed out upon was Bond's ability to savor whatever he's in, regardless of his circumstances. We can forgive that in light of the seriousness of the story and his predicament, but we can't know whether the directors intended it to be that way or not.

The movie has a few gems. Rene Mathis, the French-Italian agent Bond (as it turns out, falsely) accuses of treachery in CR, is the emotional heart of this film. In some ways, he is what Bond is archetypal - a refined gentleman with special tastes and an uncanny ability to charm others. He brings out the best in Bond and confronts him about the fact that Vesper Lynd died to protect him, and that he needs to forgive her. Judi Dench's M is a much more cold, powerful character than the previous M's and serves as a driving point for part of the plot of the film. The officers seem to cynically refer to her as "Mom" and she certainly treats them like their children, but with hard love. Daniel Craig brings a lot of depth to Bond, for all his shortcomings, and gives him human failings as well as human strengths. Perhaps most pleasingly of all, Mathieu Amalric as the (main) villain, Dominic Greene, is perfect as a sort of sinister businessman with no ethical sense of entitlement and almost analogous to the villain from Tomorrow Never Dies, but with fewer stealth boats.

The film is certainly worth watching (given that you need to have a certain tolerance to an extremely shaky camera) and certainly worth the money and time.
5/10
Not great
orangeisthenewawesome15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to see this opening night prepared to immerse myself in the fantasy life that is James Bond. Instead what I got was a poorly shot formulaic action flick that could have starred any everyman. The sophistication and FUN of James Bond was not there in this round. Also, I hadn't seen Casino Royale in quite a while and much of the film relied on storyline and characters from that film (perhaps that was my fault for not refreshing myself on "previously in James Bond's life...")

I thought the acting was first rate - Daniel Craig RULES! I really liked Olga as another character that was still hot but not a prototypical Bond girl. Judi Densch was excellent as always. But the film overall has a pretty lame and difficult to follow plot along with just being kinda boring. Craig as Bond and we the viewers deserved better.
6/10
6/10
stjackson1015 September 2020
The Bond films (Daniel Craig exclusive) and I do have a long history of having no earthly idea about what in the world is really going on at all. I feel as if the only one I did not have this experience with is Casino Royale. This is my favorite of the iteration, and its followability just may be why. The set pieces and action sequences were on par. They weren't bad, and they weren't special. So when you get what you sort of expect with predictably precise action sequences and confusing plotlines, where can a Bond movie win? In the villain, say true. And this is where QoS loses. Compared to Bardem, Waltz, and other compellingly scary villains, the blunderingly stupid antagonists here were disappointing to say the least. In my humblest opinion, a villain can make or break a Bond film, and most unfortunately, this one left broken.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
pointillist impressionistic editing and just-in-time narratives
len-1164 April 2009
McLuhan said in the electronic age narrative would decay and pattern recognition would dominate. Sure enough, mass media is dropping grammar, spelling and syntax (not to mention perspective) in favor of spectacle. Are books and film to follow suit? The latest Bond seems the shape of things to come, with pointillist impressionistic editing and just-in-time narratives that barely carry a scene. The old Bond clichés (what's that you're drinking, Bond? - I don't know) are pinned to the movie like arches and columns are pinned to bleak postmodern buildings. It's not Bond, it's postmodern Bond, sending itself up in its refusal to be Bond. As a result, poor M is left oscillating between always trusting him and never trusting him, much as we the audience oscillate between involvement and alienation. The problem with pomo cleverness is that it's a posture, not an artistic method. No mo po mo.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Ukraine girls really knock me out
richard_sleboe10 November 2008
But why cast a Slavic sexpot when you really want a Brazilian bimbo? I'm talking about Olga Kurylenko of course, featured to advantage in "Hitman" as an oligarch's wife. In "Quantum of Solace", she plays Bond's sexy sidekick Camille. Trouble is she's been twisted, tweaked, and tampered with so much that you hardly recognize her. If you've seen her before, you know she's long-limbed, fair-faced, smart and stunning. But what do they do? Her sexy rack, they smear it with rust protection. Her pretty face, they spray-paint it with glitter. Her sharp eastern accent, they turn into a lame Latina croak. What a shame. The same is true for the movie as a whole. It's covered by so many layers of make-up it's almost impossible to say whether there's something good underneath, or anything at all. So thin is the fabric of the script that Bond even reverts to stealing from Bean: Mathieu Amalric, in the part of deco-villain Dominic Greene, is clearly channeling John Malkovich as Pascal Sauvage, the Greedy Frenchman in "Johnny English". I confess, however, to having enjoyed the car chase. I think it's a first, even for Bond, to shatter the Aston before the opening credits roll.
1/10
Bad Movie !!!
axxaa-117 November 2008
They cut everything from the old Bondmovies. There is no Q anymore, no Martini, no Miss Moneypenny. Bond is not a British upper class Ladykiller anymore and Craig plays Bond more like a strong Streetfighter, not the tricky, stylish Gentleman with Oxfordeducation. This is really much more Bourne than Bond. Well, they changed the Bondstyle OK, but the movie is really bad anyway. The action scenes are nearly unwatchable because they cut and filmed the scenes much to fast, to near and with hand cameras ?? The storyline is not interesting at all, action and actors are poor. The music bad too. Jesus, i want my money back...
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing follow up
masonsaul29 September 2021
Quantum of Solace is a disappointing follow up that's rushed, confusing and borderline incomprehensible at points. However, it's just good enough to still be a solid Bond film thanks to it's fast pace, some enjoyable set pieces and strong performances.

Daniel Craig is reliably perfect as James Bond and Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench and Jeffrey Wright are all great. Unfortunately, Mathieu Amalric is the weakest villain yet, lacking any screen presence or sense of threat.

Marc Forster's direction is mostly good, the film is suitably stylish and grand but action sequences are overly edited and hard to follow and the CG is inconsistent. The music by David Arnold is really good and the song by Jack White and Alicia Keys is good but definitely one of the weaker ones.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great, love this kind of Bond
pizza_sky4 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the sequence of "Casino Royale", I didn't watch it, so I was a bit confuse with the storyline at the beginning, but after 20 minutes, just realize that this movie is so cool. You just have to concentrate hard enough to "get" the jumping time line and scenes.

Daniel Craig is used to be considered not qualified to act in a "James Bond" movie, but I think he did pretty solid. And people keep saying this "James Bond" movie doesn't fell "Bond" enough with no gadgets, no cheesy line. This movie actually don't have supermodel women that sleep with the womanizer Bond, very uncommon in a Bond movie. But I like it better this way, stop showing women as a Casanova "trophy" in movies, OK? It has a scene of a women killed in bed and been covered with oil all over her naked body, they had the exact same scene in another Bond movie "Golden eye" but not with oil but with gold. Because Quantum of Solace actually talk about a mysterious organization controlling the whole world, from oil to water, from CIA, FBI to European intelligence, from top 5 UN countries to 3rd nation countries.

very nice, I want more of this kind of Bond movie
4/10
Poor editing.
ulcjmt25 April 2021
They could have saved a bunch of money by cutting all the action scenes which were unwatchable by virtue of 3 second edit cuts.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst Bond movie ever made.
robert-veryard1-131 October 2008
Ian Fleming must be rolling in his grave by now. It was the most un-Bond like movie in the history of the franchise. First off, the plot was incredibly confusing, especially for the opera scene. Secondly, they must have hired a cameraman from a formula one circuit, because the constant fast movements didn't show what little action there was in a decent angle or pan. Thirdly, no classic bond clichés were used throughout the entire movie. Not even "Bond, James Bond". There were not enough girls, and the girls that were featured had very little character study, hardly any romance, an awful villain, and very few cars. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is: It really has got to be the worst movie ever shown this year! I was unlucky not to hold on to my money. Don't waste yours.
54 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bring back Martin Campbell and let's have some real direction around here
Wonderkind9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace – from another point of view

Two sexy spies (one named Strawberry Fields) a brush with the Bolivian secret service, a fighter jet spinning out of control, two memorable car chases and a body count climbing with every scene. Pistols, fist fights, explosions, a white shirt that seems to never get stained, jet-setting from London to Haiti to Bolivia and to top it all off, a villain named Dominic Greene with lank hair, a manic expression and a sadistic streak who is determined to take over the world. What could be more Bond than that?

This film takes up where the brilliant Casino Royale left off, with James (Daniel Craig) vowing revenge against the men who caused him to lose the only woman he ever loved, and the woman who eventually betrayed him, Vesper (the beautiful Eva Green). He discovers that the men who blackmailed Vesper into deceiving him, control an organisation (Quantum) more complex than the CIA or MI5 had ever imagined. Thus, he sets out on a confusing mission to uncover the truth behind Quantum and prevent Dominic Greene who heads this criminal group, from exploiting the world's natural resources. Absurdly, there is also a flimsy sub-plot, which Bond gets caught up in, involving a General Medrano and a attractive young spy for Bolivia (Camille) who is on her own personal assassination mission. Both are tied up somehow, in relations with the treacherous business of Quantum.

So why was I so very disappointed with Quantum of Solace?

It had all the elements of a 'true Bond' but the pieces were put together without any feeling or wit. It was clumsily arranged and too focused on the shaky camera action during the fight scenes to get back any of the fun and exhilaration that Casino Royale had left us with. We were expecting a tantalising new type of Bond, hot, sexy and ready to go. This brings us back to the old Bond who was failing to raise an audience and ready to be shelved. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat, but instead I was half-asleep. It was mediocre and left me longing to be watching its predecessor.

The storyline is poorly thought out and its translation onto screen is even worse. There is little or no dialogue worth remembering in this film and Daniel Craig's acting talents seemed to be limited to a few grimaces and numerous encounters with M. The Bond girls are limited in their roles and far too clichéd. It feels rushed, over-produced and too concerned with its own flashy exterior to worry about the story it is trying to tell. This should have been the film of the year, and it could have been! Quantum of Solace, all style and unfortunately, little substance… Bring back Martin Campbell and let's have some proper Bond direction.
1/10
Very weak. can't believe people have to watch that.
jmashba17 November 2008
Real crap. waste of time, has nothing to do with 007. 1 is for the action but otherwise 0. My main problem with Quantum Of Solace is the obvious lack of plot. The action scenes are well directed, but they mean little to the plot. For example, the opening sequence features two car chases. We don't know why they're chasing Bond, but as soon as it's over, they still don't explain it. Another is when Bond and Camille grab a plane, and for some reason that I don't remember being explained, they are shot down by a bunch of planes. It comes across as random, and really means nothing to the 'plot'. The race scene in Siena was utterly stupid. The cut back and forth from the Bond action to the race action again and again was utterly unrelated and therefore pointless.

The scene in the movie were Bond discovers the underground lake and states "he is draining all the water" as an explanation to the central "badness" that the villain is about to do is utterly laughable and silly.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Poorly done, disappointing sequel
rob-clement18 April 2009
This James Bond movie came out right after Casino Royale, so you'd expect it to be excellent, but it's not. Quantum just lacks too many essential elements of a good James Bond movie: the clean-cut fight scenes being the most noticeable of these missing elements. The Q character, the gadgets, Miss Moneypenny... etc. It's like they're abandoning the old formula. This is an honorable idea, but it just doesn't work. M needs a hot secretary James can flirt with! He needs the gadgets!

One of the most important things that Quantum of Solace lacks that I think is most necessary is clarity. James Bond is not supposed to be difficult to understand, you aren't supposed to have to think too hard while watching it. In Quantum, you basically have to figure out the villain's plan by yourself. In most movies, James is the captive audience of the villain as the villain explains his plan to him. The action sequences are also supposed to be clean and easy to view, not in the rough, jerky cinematic style that has been adopted by most filmmakers for action movies.

I do have to admit that the James Bond villain this time around was well written, and Dominic Greene was a good character. And he was clever in his plan, once the audience figured it out after the third time watching it. And the bond girls are good, too. Strawberry Fields was sort of a throw-away character with a forgettable role in the film, but she is well balanced by Camille, who is a very strong, headstrong woman with a plentiful history of her own. She is certainly a memorable bond girl.

Overall, I like it half and half. 5/10.
7/10
Criminally underrated movie sometimes
hevansint23 August 2021
This movie has one of the funniest sequences in Bond history. It is the sequence where Bond meets Camille for the first time to the moment Bond knocks the guy off his motorcycle. Craig plays that sequence perfectly and it never fails to bring a genuine smile to my face.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Worst Bond movie ever!
gperzel14 November 2008
I was first introduced to James Bond in the early 1960's when, stationed in the USAF in Iceland, I ran across a copy of "Gilt Edged Bonds"- a compilation of three of the first four Bond novels. I have been hooked ever since, but am rapidly losing my interest as the Bond chronicles continue to deteriorate in substance, plot, and film direction. This latest Bond effort is a total fiasco and has little redeeming value-it is , without a doubt. the worst Bond movie ever, taking over the bottom spot from "The Man with The Golden Gun". First of all, the film has no plot, a totally unrealistic story line, and by far the worst direction ever. The whole effort appears to be an attempt to tie a bunch of overdone, mostly incomprehensible, action scenes together with little regard for any purpose or continuity. All of the action scenes are close up, momentary glimpses that are difficult to follow and go on endlessly. The opening car chase scene has got to be one of the biggest wastes of special effects and stunt money ever made. Ditto the plane scene and the final pyro technical scene- which appears to spend half of the films budget on explosives and gasoline-to what end we will never know. Gone is any effort at the infamous Bond humor and innuendos (remember the "cunning linguist"?)or even a reasonably believable screenplay. I am sure both Ian Fleming and Cubby Broccoli and turning over rapidly in their graves as a result of this pathetic film effort. You would think that Barbara Broccoli,who has taken over for her late father as Producer, would exercise some basic effort and judgment to try to make a decent picture, but suppose the theater receipts are much more important to her. Rated a 2, only because Craig and Dench try to make an effort to salvage the disaster.
1/10
Major disappointment for all long time Bond fans
ivanml209 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yuck! "the decaf", "the diet" or "the zero calories" version of James Bond. James Bond without the substance of James Bond. You know economy is in trouble when you see a James Bond movie with:

  • No transformer sports car


  • No funny gadgets or a modified wrist watches


  • No Miss Moneypenny and witty flirtatious conversation


  • No Q to present the imaginative new technology, to tell you well known science fact and express his warm and fatherly concern of 007's welfare


  • No new visionary spy technology, just boring product placements for products that lack consumer luster.


  • No humor, I guess the writers were on strike when the movie scenario was written.


  • People left out of the movie, action scenes too fast to follow


  • Special effect below mediocre with no imagination


  • No dialog that you can quote and make fun with after the movie


  • No catchy phrase to soften the accidental death of the villain.


I can enumerate forever the bad features of another "off-the-mill" spy movie. The movie sucks almost as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". This time is not the actors, but the scenario, the bad product placements and the "stiff" dialogs.

If you want to see unbalanced movie with lots of violence, no humor or imagination go for it, spend your money on another mediocre product cranked out from a large corporation. My recommendation "wait until the movie goes on cable".

Oh, did I mention no lasers and exotic underwater scuba scenes? I still wonder where all the money went they claim was spent.
2/10
NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN Pierce Brosnan
theloneangler31 March 2009
we need you to save Bond or persuade Hugh Grant, Matthew MacFadyen or Clive Owen (Duplicity) to shave and step into your shoes. Mr. Craig is too short, too blond, too working class and his best attempt at tongue-in-cheek repartee is to frown and pout his lips. Enough. No whining over dead lovers. This humorless FX spectacle was dry as a Martini. We want the fabulous graphics opening title sequence, the sultry female vocalist title song, not Jack White. Get over Bourne, producers. We want a personality. We want suave, elegant, debonair. We want gadgets. We want a lethal lady villain like Sharon Stone. A swift karate chop to the neck, posing around corners with a Walther PPK, more driving the car, not blowing up the cars, buildings, and everything that will ignite. We want spies. We want a simple plot. Bad spy steals something, good spy steals it back. We want a better script and director. We want a real arch villain and henchmen. Give us Blofeld and Oddjob. And we want Moneypenny.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wish I had left this in 2008!
fytbsqp26 October 2021
Just watched (or almost watched) Quantum of Solace after 13 years had passed. Totally forgot the story/plot. Wish I hadn't wasted about an hour to realize how disjointed, humanly impossible and inane this movie is! A total throw-away!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Mixes Old Bond With New Bond
Matt_Layden15 December 2008
This is the first immediate sequel to any Bond film, so it plays out differently. Here we start just after Casino Royale finishes. Bond questions Mr. White and discovers a secret organization known as Quantum, who have people everywhere. Bond must now go after Dominic Greene, another pawn in Quantum's schemes and this time Bond is fueled by revenge.

With every other Bond film, they were able to stand alone since they did not need to rely on the previous installments for someone to know what is going on. This time is different. QoS is the first direct sequel to any Bond film and this does both good and bad for the end results.

As I said before Craig is an excellent Bond, one of my favourites. He adds a new layer to a character who was getting boring with the same old same old. This time we see a more dangerous Bond, some might complain that he is starting to resemble Bourne more then Bond, but I don't really mind it too much. Casino Royale showed us where they wanted to take the series and QoS continues down that road, only it stumbles a bit.

For one, the action sequences. They are all good and fun, but poorly thrown together. I got a sense of this from the trailers and my thoughts were confirmed with seeing the opening sequence and rooftop chase. I would of liked a better set-up here, throwing us directly into the action is a mis-step. But, at the same time the action sequences screamed classic Bond, which is what was missing from Royale. Here we have the car chases, plane chases and boat chases. Everything seemed like they were updating the older films and it was neat. If they were better edited and directed then I would have enjoyed them more, instead I found myself desperately trying to follow what was going on.

The villain wasn't anything special. Mathieu Amalric does a good job with what he is given, but the character is boring, not evil enough and not once did I think this guy was dangerous. I find him to be like a little boy with too much power. Mr. White would have been a better villain, but it seems they are saving that for another time. Olga Kurylenko is beautiful and she looks like she can handle herself, but I wasn't too impressed here. I enjoyed Eva Green a lot more and wanted her back here. Not saying Kurylenko does a bad job, she just isn't that interesting to me.

Most of these problems aren't we the actors, but the script. It is muddled with problems in the plot and sometimes is hard to follow. There were a few unnecessary parts and characters, Mathis and Felix Leiter randomly show up and don't do anything of interest. I was disappointed and it seems the series may need a new writer or two to bring fresh and more importantly clear ideas for the next installment.

In the end this is a decent flick, it serves as a bridge to what I hope and think will be a better film down the road. It's basically the second half of Casino Royale as well. If you enjoyed Royale, you will like this one, but you won't be enthusiastic about it. I sure wasn't.
6/10
Disappointing
carl-rogers3431 October 2008
So finally after months of trailers, interviews and magazine covers, James Bond 22: Quantum of Solace hits the big screen for all the public to see.

In Casino Royale, Daniel Craig stepped up to the Bond title despite widespread belief that he didn't fit the role, and the he wouldn't be able to take over from the likes of Connery, Moore or Brosnan. It not only produced a huge Box Office, but re-ignited what, to many, felt a dying franchise.

Unfortunately, QoS has not made the same mark. The build up promised a depper, grittier Bond, yet compared to the chemistry between Bond and Vesper in C.R there lacked any notable emotional development portrayed by Bond. The increased amount of action sequences and quicker cuts make the film take on a more 'Bourne' feeling, yet this is unsuccessful when compared, and it makes the plot lack significance.

Bond is notable more distant than in CR, deliberate though it may be – it results in no attachment to Bond. The whole movie is a constant struggle for the audience to keep up and is by no means easy watching. This, however, I am not criticizing – you don't go into a Bond movie thinking its going to be a feel-good rom-com. Two actors deserve notable commendation, Mathis and Camille provide ample enjoyment throughout the film, and Mathis in particular supplies an emotional attachment.

The film promised to take off where CR left, but as you walk out of the screen, you realize not much had really been uncovered. You also feel that this Bond has become too dark, too gritty to be considered a true Bond great, CR made the cut and gave us the right balance, yet I believe that this may have overstepped the mark a little.

Overall a good blockbuster but not a brilliant Bond movie.
7/10
My least favourite of Craig's
MAYESY-4414 June 2020
Still a very good bond film just personally my least favourite of his. Plenty of great action I just don't think the story follows on as well as the hoped from Casino Royale.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Continues Craig's reign as Bond...but still not quite the quality of Casino Royale
Robert_duder15 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As much as I love sequels it is a rare thing to have the second installment as good or better than the original. This is probably part of the problem with Quantum of Solace besides its questionable title. This is the first time a film has been a direct sequel to a previous Bond title. Quantum of Solace is like an exact continuation of Casino Royale which was a masterpiece in reinventing Bond. There is nothing wrong with that but it means there is a lack of an original story, repeat characters, and rehashing some of the original concept. All that being said Quantum of Solace has some truly incredible action moments, some amazing battles, but lacked the depth of plot that Casino Royale had. The film jumps right into incredible action and picks up exactly where Casino Royale leaves off. I made sure I watched Casino Royale literally hours before going into Quantum of Solace and I do think it enhanced how much I enjoyed it because it could succeed in being one big film. If you loved Craig's turn as Bond then you won't be disappointed because he does return in a big way although I will say what I said after Casino Royale...he is not your Grandpappy's Bond. They have reinvented him with an edge and a much darker side.

Daniel Craig has the perfect balance of suave smooth character with that tough as nails, license to kill psychotic side to him that they seem to be giving to the new era of Bond. He is still a kick ass hero and really holds his own on screen. I don't think he gets nearly the depth of character in Quantum of Solace but he is still really great to watch. Olga Kurylenko is the sultry new Bond girl and fits the bill to a T. She fills all the previous shoes just perfectly and her and Bond have a sexy passionate and chemistry ridden relationship. She is terrific and should have a promising career ahead of her. Mathieu Amalric could have been a really great villain. Here is the issue...it seems like they downplayed him as a villain and he doesn't really get the full treatment of being a Bond villain like they did previously. He is almost forgettable as a villain and yet has this really great look and style to him. Judi Dench and Jeffrey Wright return as their cameo roles that suit them very well although Wright is hardly used in this film.

Director Marc Forster takes over direction and does a good solid job. Forster has done some really terrific films and he has a good handling on style and action. Many IMDb reviewers have said how dark this Bond film is and how he goes over the edge but it seems like they are over analyzing the film because while the plot is that Bond is on a revenge kick I don't think he goes over the edge and that there is this truly dark kick to the Bond story. Craig's Bond has had edge since the minute Casino Royale started and that hasn't changed. The whole plot which it seems they had to force the title into making sense is a little much and with all the action in the film it would have made more sense to be about weapons, or computers or something other than water...which is the basis of the film. Still Bond fans can rejoice because the franchise is in tact and still terrific with Craig making us proud. 8/10
6/10
Serves mainly as coda to far superior "Casino Royale"
IAM4UK-210 December 2008
Viewers who walk into "Quantum of Solace" without having seen "Casino Royale," but familiar with the series of James Bond movies, will scratch their heads throughout this film. They will wonder if they are actually in the right theater! This movie is not like other Bond films, often to its detriment. But it does add to the story told in "Casino Royale," and does make me interested to go on another adventure with this "new" Bond.

Things about this movie that are good:

-- Judi Dench (as "M") has a more substantial role than usual. I wouldn't want that to become the norm for Bond movies, but she's very good and the story elements involving "M" worked well.

-- Olga Kurylenko was an interesting female lead. Again, the story strayed from formula with the female lead, but that was fine. And she was more than mere eye-candy in this role.

Things about this movie that are not good:

-- The direction. There are more elements to the language of cinema than just the close-up and the extreme close-up. The fact that the director limited himself primarily to those two shots made the numerous action sequences far less interesting than they should have been.

-- The editing. Shots should be maintained for longer than 0.8 seconds every once in a while...

-- The writing. A little exposition never killed anyone... Bond goes from place to place and does exactly what he must, but we are never given any ideas about how he knew to do most of those things. He's not merely lucky, but this script presents him that way.
7/10
Less terrible after repeated viewings...
Chalice_Of_Evil17 August 2019
2006's Casino Royale is my favourite Bond film, as I felt it had everything a Bond film needs. A percentage of its success must go to director Martin Campbell, as he knew how to film action scenes coherently. Meanwhile, QoS's director...does not. It's choppily edited right from the beginning with a car chase that would've been thrilling if we could've actually *seen* half of what was going on. Instead, it just feels dizzying (and may cause headaches). When the chaos eventually comes to an end, we discover this movie has picked up not long after the end of Casino Royale when Bond introduced himself to the elusive Mr. White by shooting him in the leg.

Casino Royale's opening fight, which was awesome, perfectly led into a memorably unique version of the 'gun barrel sequence', bleeding (literally) into the opening titles. This one, however, just sort of abruptly stops mid-scene, cutting to far less impressive opening credits with a song from Alicia Keys & Jack White that will hopefully ensure there's never another duet performance of a Bond theme song. 'Another Way To Die' is...not good. Any attempts to make it sound the slightest bit 'Bond theme-esque' feel forced, and the entire sequence is forgettable.

This movie's unique in that it feels like a direct sequel to Casino Royale, with Bond looking to get revenge on those responsible for the circumstances Vesper Lynd found herself in. It's not long before we're treated to a chase scene on foot which sadly pales in comparison to the awe-inspiring parkour scene from the last film. The ending to this chase, with Bond pointing his gun directly at the screen felt like *it* should've led into the gun barrel sequence (missed opportunity). Judi Dench's M is worried about the pile of bodies Bond's leaving in wake as a result of his vendetta, while Daniel Craig as Bond disappointingly seems to have lost much of the sense of humour he had in the previously, which makes for a far less entertaining film this time around (though he does memorably b!tch-slap a motorbike).

The lack of Eva Green's presence is felt, as she had electrifying chemistry with Daniel Craig...which is sorely lacking here. Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields (whose first name we never hear, but you'll discover via the end credits...and then understand why she wishes to only go by the name Fields, as her fist name's a bad joke that you can't imagine any parent ever naming their kid) attempts to keep herself from falling for Bond's 'charms', but try as she might, is not immune. She proves herself 'very brave' in helping Bond escape the bad guys, the result of which leads to Bond having a revelation as M utters this memorable line to him: "Look how well your charm works, James. They'll do anything for you, won't they?".

The other 'Bond Girl', Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko), may lack some double entendre for a name, but at least she has a backstory (to go along with her back scars), which gives her character depth. She too is out for revenge and has some meaningful discussions with Bond about that (one being in a cave, following a chase sequence with planes that *should* have been thrilling, but was actually quite ho-hum). Bond gives Camille a crash course in revenge-seeking and the two of them, surprisingly, never do the 'horizontal-mambo', instead only sharing a kiss (which is unusual for a Bond film, but actually very fitting considering where both of them are at emotionally. It just wouldn't have felt right had she jumped into bed with him).

Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene will no doubt go down in history as one of the 'worst'/most boring Bond villains ever. His bug-eyes don't add any sense of menace to him, as he comes across more as a creep/dweeb than anything. Even giving him a fight scene with Bond near the end doesn't help. While Le Chiffre may not have gotten one with Bond in the last film, at least he left an impression. Same can't be said for Greene (though at least he's caused pain and left with a very fitting choice to make).

It's a shame that there's potential for a good movie here that mostly gets squandered. A scene at the opera *should* be memorable, but isn't all it could've been. Bad editing and odd pacing harm the film that has a relatively short runtime compared to most Bond movies, but still somehow feels as though it 'drags' in places, and even the resolution to Bond's personal mission feels unsatisfying. While I appreciated the movie somewhat more with repeated viewings, it still remains disappointing.
7/10
Good, but some things are missing
bob-rutzel-131 March 2009
James Bond (Craig) is on the trail of Mr. Greene (Amalric) who may have led Vesper (who Bond fell for in Casino Royale) to betray Bond. Bond is after the truth and makes things personal.

Hey, we have a new action hero. Bond, James Bond. Now, he is more like Bruce Willis, and Matt Damon who plays the Jason Bourne character. The action scenes rival anything we have ever seen. They are really good. To play this Bond, Daniel Craig needs to be in top shape. Can he keep it up? Do we want him to?

No, we want the old Bond, James Bond, back, with less action, more calculating and, suave. Suave? Yes, suave. Gone are the facial expressions and quirky one-liners we have all come to know as the Bond, James Bond signatures. Where is Sean when we need him? We need change we can believe in. This Bond is not the Bond, James Bond we knew and loved. Oh, he's still good, just not the Bond, James Bond we crave.

Gone also is the humor the one-liners gave us. The Bond, James Bond twinkle of the eyes. Gone. Moneypenney? Where was she? Gone. The Gadget Guy? Gone. And, the Bond, James Bond music that we are all familiar with came when the credits at the end rolled on by. At the end, for God's sake! At the end!!! And, one more thing. Unless I missed it I never heard Craig say the line we always expect in a Bond, James Bond movie, "Bond, James Bond" when giving his name to someone.Okay, one more thing. Also no Baccarat or even Poker like in Casino Royale. Gone. Yes, Toto, this doesn't feel like Kansas anymore. These are not changes we like.

Overall, this is a very good production except for the things that are missing that could have made it a better production. Let Bruce Willis and Matt Damon do their things, but bring back the Bond, James Bond we grew up with.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.
1/10
Worst Bond Film
kstevenham30 November 2008
How bad can the Bond movies get? The previews of future movies had more of a plot. Daniel Craig is miscast as Bond and would benefit from some acting lessons. Non-stop action doesn't make a movie. The action is also totally unrealistic, more like the Matrix. Not that the action found in the Matrix is bad, it just doesn't fit a Bond movie. The action is more similar to what you find in shoot'em and kill'em PC games.

Bond movies have also had a tradition where Bond is shown and given some net cool gadgets that are then used somewhere in the plot. In this Bond movie, I guess there was no place to have gadgets.

Time to fire the producers, director, writers, and main actors to get Bond movies back again.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Nice action movie
Eightiesseeker27 January 2009
Though considered as a reboot of the James Bond franchise, it misses about all flair what Bond made famous. The gadgets (though the MI6's computer is impressive, but not directly used by Bond), the straight, simple forward story, where Bond came for the bad guy at the end, a lot of Bond Girls etc. Q, and the introduction of the latest gadgets are also absent.

Quantum Of Solace is, like Casino Royale, a dark movie, which I actually like. But here it's more like it is a coincidence that the main character is called James Bond.

For a plain action movie I'd gave it 6 or 7. But this is not worth a Bond movie, so just 4 (because of the impressive computer, got a 3 otherwise).
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't bother if you think you got a Bourne Ultimatum rip-off.
honorhorror6 November 2008
Saw it in Bangkok tonight.

What's the point with a Bond movie? After all these good 40 years, does it not deserve some change at least? I guess the critics over this film will go ultimately two-ways. At the good end, people like me will say it's pretty good stand on its own, with smart editing and enough actions. But people who enjoy the old-school Bond movies more will find QOS intimidating, as if it's a rip-off of Bourne franchise.

I've quite decided to give the movie a solid 8/10 after 10 minutes into the movie, and the rest of it just kept me interested. So why not? The leading female Olga Kurylenko did a good job as Bond girl, who for the first time doesn't have any romance with Bond. I give credits to that. Plus, Daniel Craig looks cold and strong as usual, with all the stunts well carried out. I also give points to that.

I mean, come on. Mark Forster at least knows how to make an action movie. He knows to cut actions into dramatic presentation paralleled. He gives a respect to Godfather and other good movies. So what makes the critics so harsh? What really could have destroyed the film, is the fact that after Casino Royal, people's expectation are so much higher. All you need to do to enjoy Quantam of Solace is to relax and take it for what it is. It's not hard to do.
6/10
Entertaining, though a considerable step-down follow-up
Jay_Exiomo4 November 2008
James Bond doesn't need any introductions this time around. Never uttering the trademark "Bond, James Bond" line, the Marc Forster-helmed "Quantum of Solace" - the 22nd in the irrepressible franchise starring the British secret agent - quickly goes into the proceedings with a highly charged car chase scene across Italy, set roughly an hour after 2006's "Casino Royale."

The whole article feels more Bourne than Bond, where revenge is what drives the dashing debonair played for the second time by Daniel Craig. For the uninitiated, Bond lost his love interest Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) in "Casino Royale." Now, he's hot on the heels of the primary suspect, pseudo-environmentalist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who is one of the heads behind the international terrorist organization Quantum. With him as he luxuriously globe-trots is Russian-Bolivian Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), who has her own score to settle with Greene.

But where the Bourne series and "Casino Royale" succeed, "Quantum of Solace does not... barely. With a protracted running time and too much ground to cover, it's all about the flash, the fights, and the chases. The wit and seduction that made the franchise reboot's work is sorely missing here and all Bond is left with is a monotonous character bordering the superhuman. Kurylenko is impressive as Bond's femme partner and serves as one of the movie's high points, along with the combined performances of the cast that includes Judi Dench as M and Jeffrey Wright as a CIA agent somehow inject the much needed life to all this gaudy proceedings.

As it turns out, "Quantum of Solace" still offer some entertaining moments, but overall it's a considerable step-down from its immediate predecessor.
8/10
Fragmentary, kinetic and vastly enjoyable - a Bond for its times
pyrocitor15 November 2008
It would seem Mr. Bond, James Bond, has yet to tire of reinventing himself. After the critical and commercial success of precursor Casino Royale, one would have expected producers to take the safe route of carrying on the franchise with the same self-reflexive yet supremely entertaining tone. But far be it from 007 to settle for the safe option, as Quantum of Solace showed fearless confidence from day one, from the tongue-tripping title (referring to Bond's seeking emotional closure after the death of the one woman he allowed himself to love) to being the first direct sequel in the series (picking up only a matter of hours after Casino Royale's finish). The final film encompasses this daring, simultaneously returning to the more fun spirit of earlier Bond outings while paradoxically proving one of the least "Bond-like" films in the series.

This curious hybridity of tone can likely be attributed to unconventional director Marc Foster, more renowned for harrowing character studies like Monster's Ball or Finding Neverland. But while not versed in action credentials, Foster cannot be faulted for lack of ambition, kicking off his film at a frenzied pace which seldom slows, cohesion cast aside in favour of sheer energy and movement. As such, the film never quite gels as a whole, but the sum of its fragmentary parts proves too entertaining for one to mind.

Aiming beyond the superficiality of the traditional Bond film without sacrificing its gleeful escapism, Quantum of Solace proves the most overtly politically and socially topical Bond film to date. In lieu of the usual oversimplifications of global politics, this Bond interacts with a world where major governments lend support to corrupt dictators in exchange for oil, and the villain is frightening not because of a laughably over the top scheme to rule the world but for playing upon frighteningly valid environmental concerns. Foster's knack for credible characterisation also makes the film the rare exception to the action movie rule where the quiet character moments peppering the pyrotechnic mayhem prove among the film's most fulfilling points. As Bond, his soul as ravaged and barren as the desert setting symbolically chosen for the film's climax, desperately pursues either vengeance or peace, the film is given a crucial emotional core, with enough substance to make the film far more than an explosion-riddled guilty pleasure.

However, Foster knows his demographic, and almost overcompensates for the film's surprising complexity on the action front, saturating his film with enough viciously intense fistfights (though complaints may ensue over coordinator Dan Bradley overly recycling his distinctive style from the Bourne series), explosions and various vehicular chases (car, foot, motorcycle, boat and plane respectively) to enthrall even the most jaded action junkies.

Once again, Daniel Craig as 007 proves the high point of an already impressive film, masking Bond's raw, seething emotions under a carefully cultivated shell of grim stoicism, making his inner turmoil all the more affecting. Conversely, Craig is given more of a chance to exercise his suave wit this time, proving just as adept at wry quips as heavy dramatic scenes or bone- crunching fights. Olga Kurylenko's fierce simmer makes her a wonderfully compelling female lead, even if her chief motivation is overly familiar (vengeance), and Mathieu Almaric is deliciously slimy as villainous Dominic Greene, all the more effective by how eerily plausible his character is. As usual, Judi Dench shines as Bond's superior M, providing a welcome burst of perfectly curt authority and class. However, despite her best attempts at a charming performance, Gemma Arterton's throwback to the 'traditional' (ie: more passive) Bond girl proves a misfire, her brief and uneventful role marking how unnecessary and out of place her inclusion was in the first place. And the less said about that clumsy Goldfinger homage the better...

Despite the myriad of its exceptional parts, Quantum of Solace never quite convenes into a cohesive whole, giving the impression of a collection of subplots enthusiastically thrust together and shot off at high octane, as heavy on political commentary and emotional drama as its abundant action. An oddity for a 007 film to be sure, but one so enormously entertaining that both fans of the series and those unfamiliar with Bond are sure to be swept up by its gleefully madcap grandeur.

-8/10
6/10
Sound movie leaving no traces in memory
CasualView9 November 2008
Action and chasing scenes are professional, no problems with them. Plot and script either boring or little stupid. For example at the very end of the movie Bond with 100% confidence tells a girl she is from Canadian intelligence service, but at the same time asks "what's your name". So he knows everything about the girl but doesn't know her name? Very funny. Scene when two (Bond and Bondgirl) attack hotel packed with armed guards looks like pure "Matrix" parody. Greene is not afraid to be killed by dictator but afraid to be killed by Bond. Dictator knows less tortures or it's assumed (contrary to real life) that all dictators are inherent cowards? Such episodes are not really goofs but leave unpleasant aftertaste. Seems that imagination of Ian Fleming in the 50-ies created more "realistic" and attractive plots than imagination of today's authors using quasi-real background. Some episodes are on a bright side of life: whole "Tosca opera" thing - nearly brilliant; short martial combat in elevator and subsequent corridor conversation with "M" - very "Bondish" because supplemented by nice 007 theme remix; final episode with Mathis - really touchy. It also has touch of hidden humor in fact that secret organization is called "Quantum" ("Quantum" is real name of secret offshore company and fund of "realworld" George Soros used to perform his operations so it's a strong allusion). Also a fine joke when police chief takes money and says that "corrupted government cannot be tolerated". So of course there's no chance that Bond fans stop watching 007 series, but this franchise turns more and more into something similar to X-Files. Good for single evening, no wish to leave it in DVD library like it happened with "old good" 007 movies.

Also it's nice that Broccoli & team secretly accepted that "Never Say Never Again" was actually the best Bond movie ever :) - Dominic Greene is mirror copy of Maximillian Largo.
2/10
Quantum of Patience....
shreeshabhat15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've never been much of a Bond movie fan. There had been about 20 offerings from the franchise, all containing the same core plot: some nut-job gets his hands on a nuclear weapon, and Bond saves the day just in time. Okay, maybe that's the way Bond movies are supposed to be. No complaints there.

But then came Casino royale, packed with mind-blowing action sequences and Daniel Craig, and no nuclear bombs. It made me believe that maybe it's turning into a real action-movie franchise. No doubt expectations were running high long before Quantum of solace released. The opening car chase made me wonder if I was about to watch one of the best action movies ever.

But hello, what was that, what followed? A string of 'action' sequences sewed together in order, with no credible storyline in between them to make them seem justified. The climactic scene turned out to be the bottommost point in the abyss: explosions, fire, collapsing buildings - all tailored just to give the movie an ending.

And finally what did Bond achieve? Most of the top-level people in the evil organisation are killed. Done. Nothing else. Any idiot with a gun could do that. I would have preferred a nuclear weapon about to detonate and the world being saved in the nick of time, over all this mindless killing.

The characters are all hollow shells: Bond is only grieving his dead love all through, and the two ladies come and go and do nothing in between their entries and exits. Eva Green, who had such a core character in Casino..., was sorely missed. Felix and the other CIA agent seem to be just a bunch of drunk punks meddling in terrorists' affairs. M seemed like a schoolteacher unable to rein down a naughty kid. The villains? Oh, please, Bond himself looked more menacing than those idiots.

This better not be the theme for the Bond movies to come.
6/10
Lots of action, not so much story
joanna-711 December 2008
On the one hand, I like the new Bond (Daniel Craig). I like that the writers/directors did away with a lot of the cheesy wise-cracking dialog and monologing villains ("Since I'm going to kill you, Mr. Bond, let me tell you my evil plans.") In Quantum of Solace, it's one mind-numbing chase scene after another. Car chases, boat chases, motorcycle chases and even parkour-esquire chases on foot, though not as spectacular at the beginning of "Casino Royale".

What's lacking is a cohesive story. There are hints of story. There's even scraps of subplots. But if you're looking for a story arc (much less a character arc) to put the pieces together and make sense of all of these chase scenes and assassinations, this film is firing blanks.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A well designed Video Game!!!
gan_iyer3022 November 2008
Bond movies are all about Style, Sex, Jaw Dropping Stunts & lastly a captivating Storyline. The makers seem to have underestimated the necessity of a good clean screenplay. The scenes rush past you and at times it was very difficult to determine what was happening. The movie uses scale and technical grandeur to compensate for the fractured script. The director attempts to salvage the movie by packing in some scintillating but confusing action sequences. The edit points were just too close; would have been better if the scenes were shot with a wider angle.

Non-stop action backed by a decent plot at times makes for an entertaining viewing, but in this case it almost seemed as if I was sitting at my console playing a well designed game – multiple levels, with different villains who are killed off by Bond & Finally leading up to the "Big Villain" at the end.

The characters are all underdeveloped - having no layers, no edge whatsoever. You rarely find yourself sympathizing with any of the characters.

This one just Disappointed........wasted Opportunity!!!
6/10
Probably just makes the top 20 Bond movies
mikelaurielfc17 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Please don't turn Bond into another mediocre action film. I like Daniel Craig as Bond but please give him some more humour.

The only humour I saw in this film was at the end.

Bond had spent the whole film smashing through all the heavies, killing them, chasing them, disarming them, maiming them. Alot of them just took seconds.

But when it came to overpowering the weedy baddy Green he just didn't seem to be able to do it. Maybe it was that he new Greene was wearing his favourite white shirt and didn't want to upset him by creasing it unnecessarily.

Blimey he didn't even get to woo Olga. What were the writers thinking of!

Anyway I've said my piece and I'll expect better in Danny's last one.

YNWA
9/10
Bond for the art-house action film-goer
joestank1514 November 2008
Quantum of Solace - Daniel Craig's second outing as James Bond has him in pursuit of Vesper Lynd's killers from the previous movie. He pursues (and is often pursued by) agents of a shadowy organization. The leader of which is one Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric of "Munich") a faux environmentalist who is holding a country's water supply at ransom. Judi Dench reprises her role as "M". Giancarlo Giannini returns as Mathis and so does Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter.

Everyone I have talked to about this movie has one question: Is it better than Casino Royale? No and I'll tell you why. Casino Royale was a fantastic movie that had the novelty of a first-time Daniel Craig and the direction of a seasoned James Bond director (Martin Campbell). This movie does not try to be better and probably could not have been. It tries to be different. The plot, for one thing, actually makes you think.

I was happy with the choice of Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) because I knew he and Daniel Craig would help bring depth to the proceedings and help flesh out the character of Bond so that he is not just another man with a gun in an action film. Daniel Craig is as good as he was in Casino Royale, though this time he is "damaged goods". He has tremendous force of character, and looks like he could kill you with a glare. He escapes by the skin of his neck, and works harder than any of the other Bonds ever had to. He is the best of the Bonds, because he's a real actor, and a damn fine one at that. Roger Moore was not an actor, even by his own admission. Lazenby was a model. Brosnan was a star. Craig is an actor.

Olga Kurylenko gives it a decent run as Camille but she's no Vesper Lynd. And that was the point really, wasn't it? Jeffrey Wright is sly and fun as Felix Leiter. Mathieu Almaric is cruel, weaselly and has an interesting dynamic with Craig.

Right off the bat this film provides visceral action, but it does not try to glorify it. The action is gritty and fast and hard, though not quite as fantastic as the chases and fights in Casino Royale. Bond never caps off a death with a wisecrack, like in the original Ian Fleming novels (he rarely quipped at a death). I'm glad they dumped the sometimes stupid humor from the original movies. It was mostly puns and boner jokes. This Bond is coldly efficient, and when he does joke, it's as ironic and dry as the deserts he spends quite a bit of the film in.

This film is self aware, a new thing for the Bond films. Prior to Quantum, no one, in or out of the movies, seemed to have a problem with the fact that James Bond's love interests tended to die. It just became like the red shirts in Star Trek, a franchise staple. He lost his wife in OHMSS, mourned for 5 seconds, and was off again. In Quantum of Solace a few people venture that Bond is poisonous through his very nature.

The femme fatal used to be more of a way to showcase the latest Hollywood starlet, who came and went before we had the next installment. I think films like The Dark Knight and Quantum are a sign of maturity in our action films, with female characters treated with respect and the understanding that violence has repercussions. Villains want power and money, not global destruction and underwater lairs.

That's not to say that this Bond is all work and no play. It is fun, frequently. Marc Forster has fun deciding when to show and not show bits of violence, until the action gets pretty brutal at the final fights. I enjoyed this film stylistically. The film uses a lot of blues and grays and the occasional yellow. Another thing I enjoyed was the location subtitles. By embellishing these, the globe-trotting was not just a "Bond's gone to Cairo again. yawn." sort of thing.

I was expecting to dislike the fact that this is the shortest Bond yet, after Casino was "too" long and I felt like I still didn't get enough. It turns out that quality is what matters, not just quantity. This was just the right amount of Bond.

It really is a Bond for action lovers and art-house fans alike. I happen to dabble in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and recommend it to all. It really gives luster to qualities in the James Bond series that repetition has made stale.

A-
6/10
Just a Good Action flick, but not at all a Bond Movie!
ssvikas9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jason Bourne is back, dressed in suits! Did I say Bourne? Honestly, I am still confused whether movie makers wanted to show James Bond or someone else. Daniel Craig, less bulky this time reprises his role as an unbridled thug in the garb of the world’s favorite secret agent. This insanity of portraying favorite ‘heroes’ as ‘flawed’ has gutted 007 too! For those who have grown to love bond through the ages, this is definitely not amusing.

Taking off from Casino Royale, the story opens with Bond in a car chase in Italy with Mr. White in the trunk of his Aston Martin. While the MI6 question White on the mysterious organization Quantum, a double agent fires at M causing White to escape. Clues lead Bond to Haiti where he meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), the vengeful muse of Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) Chairman of Greene Planet and member of Quantum.

Quantum is portrayed as a dark organization with devious means having highly placed people including an adviser to the British PM as members. Older fans of the Bond series would quickly recognize the parallel with SPECTRE that featured in eight early 007 films. For the rest of the film, 007 and Camille get busy foiling Greene’s plans of monopolizing Bolivia’s water supply and of placing a corrupt General as president by staging a coup.

To fit the bill of a secret agent, Craig as Bond takes in a lot of physical damage without a bit of exhaustion and is cold enough to dump a dead friend in a trash can; but is still confused at handling emotions about Vesper. The flip side is worse as he has stripped 007 of all humor and the typical one-liners that Connery, Brosnan and Moore delivered with aplomb and made bond what he is. His lack of looks makes things even terrible.

Olga Kurylenko, picked from among 400 girls who auditioned for the role, is a stunner and is reasonably believable a bond girl. A young Gemma Arterton has too brief a role for any comment. Dame Judi Dench plays boss ‘M’ with perfection in a more elaborate role, thinking with her head and guided by what she believes in. Q and his gadgets are sorely missed as bond sports nothing more than silly phone with GPS and a camera.

Had this starred Matt Damon, it could have easily become the fourth Bourne movie. Action sequences are breathtaking complimented by good and camera work and special effects. Despite this, Quantum of Solace is just not the James Bond movie you expect to see. If you seek clang bang action, go for it; but if you want your cherished suave secret agent, I’d rather suggest you gift yourself a DVD pack of the older twenty 007 flicks.
6/10
A good movie ruined by bad filmmaking.
jefferydhamstra10 June 2020
This movie is a prime example of a solid film destroyed by an incompetent editor. The cast is great and the story isn't bad as far as Bond films go. But the action, which is the center of the film, is almost completely unwatchable. Which is unfortunate because there are a few brilliant shots hiding in there. It does play better then some of the old bond films but it's easily the worst of Craig's.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another boring 007 film with plot flaws galore.
paulclaassen18 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The opening chase scene was impressive. The action scenes are incredibly fast-paced and very well done. That's about as much as I liked the film. Let's face it: I'm not a James Bond fan for obvious reasons - nothing in these films are realistic. Almost all the scenes are for effect only and either completely unrealistic or completely stupid. Off course there's the favorite cliched running on the roofs scenes, as well as the running through the kitchen scene, and naturally - being American - the destroy as much as possible scenes. The Bond plots are always way too confusing for my puny little mind, also Bond's ability to know foreign places inside and out. Everything is just too easy for Bond, and the way he dodges bullets is just not believable. It's quite boring, actually. How is it that his insane ideas and plans always work?? The ending was spectacular (for a moment) but then overdone by effects. Daniel Craig does make a good Bond, though. Mathieu Amalric was not convincing as the villain.
3/10
Loved Casino Royale, this is not Casino Royale
joshua-l-quimby7 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie was absolute garbage. Way too fast with no explanation of plot points. I am an attentive watcher and I have no idea what was going on in this movie. I believe at least 25% of this movie was spent in a chase sequence of some sort. And most of those chase sequences highly disjointed. Bond figures out through some unannounced reasoning that one of M's aids is a double agent; chase scene for 10 minutes. Bond goes to Brazil or something to track a guy, opens the door, the 2 of them fight to the death. No words exchanged on the screen the whole time. Who knows? Maybe spy work is more like this, just following a bunch of unsubstantiated hunches and killing people without trying to get information from them. Regardless of what you think of Pierce's overly-smug Bond, those movies were good for at least 2 or 3 stunts you have never seen before and moments where you got to watch Bond being "the coolest guy in the room." This film had a few one-liners, but was not funny, was hard to watch and I feel I wasted my time. Hopefully, you won't waste yours.
7/10
Not as Good by Still Worth Watching
The-Sarkologist23 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The tricky thing with this film is that it actually follows on directly after the events in Casino Royale, and also has references to characters that were present in the previous film, in particular Vesper Lynn. Then again, there were also other characters, such as Mathis, who also appeared in the film and even though I have watched Casino Royale previously, it didn't quite click that this film was supposed to follow on directly afterwards.

Bond is basically after the people who were responsible for Vesper's death (even though she sacrificed herself for Bond). This leads him to discover a secret organisation named Quantum, and that they had managed to infiltrate the high levels of government, to the point that they even had a mole in MI-5 (interesting how the name of the organisation the Bond is working for has changed over the years, but I guess everybody associates MI-5 with Britian's version of the CIA, and the Secret Service is actually an American organisation tasked with looking after the president).

The interesting thing with this film is that it actually deals with the grey area that a lot of these organisations exist within. I guess we are looking at a new world where such organisations are strictly criminal. Well, okay, they do kill people, but a lot of their actions, while not being morale, are technically legal. In fact, we find that there is an issue that the governments are actually supporting the main protagonist in this film, which makes Bond's mission doubly tricky.

Mind you, I did like this film, though in part it sort of doesn't come all that close to the previous one. I guess I found it a little confusing at points, namely because I didn't realise that it was really closely tied in with Casino Royale. However, if you have read some of the Bond books you will note that Flemming does actually link the stories up, even if it is only something at the beginning that references the previous book, and then Bond ends up doing something completely unrelated.

Another thing I found is that it went a bit fast at times as well, and this it made it tricky to follow the course of events. For instance there is a scene where M arrests him, and in the elevator he beats up the guards, escapes, and then walks past M and says something, and she seems to be perfectly fine with the fact that he has escaped, despite the fact that there are a whole heap of other guards after him. Oh, and the bit at the end where he gets the information from Greene I sort of missed as well, with all of the explosions and the building falling down around them and all that. There is also the thing about Greene landing up with two bullets in his head - that was never explained either (though apparently he was killed by Quantum).

Yeah, this film was okay, but in a way it certainly wasn't one of the best, but it was still better than some of the previous ones that had appeared in the last few years.
7/10
QoS, just as Another way to Die: It's still Bond, but not that good
woutfontane11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by telling you that, after watching this film for the second time, I still feel like there's something missing and I still don't get the story straight. You really should have seen Casino Royale before you watch this one, if not you won't be able to make any sense of it at all.

Secondly I spent a lot of time thinking Why? during this film. Why is Bond being chased by the cars in the kick-off scene? Why is he chased by the airplanes in the, I must say, wonderful action scene in the third part of the film. Why is there so much likeness between this film and the Bourne trilogy? Why did Marc Forster decided to put the gun barrel-scene at the very end of the movie? As if this film isn't controversial enough. Why did the few attempts of humor (Every penny of it) felt like they were only put in this film to please the audience with some random Bond-jokes?

Daniel Craig and Dame Judi Drench make a wonderful appearance once again. But on the other hand, the villain of this movie (Dominic Greene) just didn't feel that evil. But I can't say that the 'missing feeling' comes from the fact that the characters weren't that interesting.

I do understand that QoS doesn't need a full two-hour plot, and that there doesn't need to be a casino visit in every Bond film. As well as the famous lines "My name is Bond, James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" can be skipped every ones in a while. But for heavens sake, please bring back the charming, humorous and intelligent Bond that Craig proved to be capable of being in CR. Maybe it had to be this way to make this plot to a good ending. As Bond would say: "The bitch is dead" please stop the vengeance part and get back to how things used to be. Make a fresh start with a whole new story and I'm sure QoS will get it's respect in time.

Verdict: Action 7 (A lot of pointless action, and very short shots) Plot 6 (Complicated, confusing, not all that interesting) Acting 8 (Wonderful)

I give QoS 7/10 stars and I am going to watch it again to see if it deserves more credits then it gets now. I advise you to do the same.

Peace
7/10
Different kind of Bond
namideo14 November 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this film is different from other Bond flicks. Different how, you ask? Well, just different. While the Pierce Brosnan films stuck religiously to a concrete formula that was molded throughout the Sean Connery/Roger Moore years, this movie takes tremendous liberties with that formula. Do not expect laser watches or underwater lairs or henchman with metal teeth and diamond crusted faces, etc. Not unlike Casino Royale, but even that film had a casino and a villain with a bleeding eye. I credit much of the change in style to director Marc Forster. So, in prep for this film, don't go and watch GoldenEye again, watch The Kite Runner instead, because in some ways, it's probably closer in comparison. Alright, maybe that was a slight stretch. In either case, coming from a series that has delved into so many different genres and styles over the last 40-something years, a change is often welcomed by some, but perhaps may disappoint others.

I generally don't like comparing Bond films to one another, but as this is the first one in the series to count as an actual sequel, I have to compare it to it's predecessor. It's not as good as Casino Royale, which may very well be the most classic Bond story ever told. But it is a decent effort. I can't rank it among the best films in the series, but it's definitely worth your money.

Daniel Craig is back. The role is officially his now and there is no skepticism this time around. He's back and down to business. Olga Kurylenko gives us our leading lady, Camille, and gave a far better performance than I would've thought, considering her fairly limited career as an actress. She and Craig are a dynamite team. Mathieu Amalric plays a most creepy villain in the form of Dominic Greene. He's a Bond villain in the traditional sense, but manages to be so without feeling contrived.

What surprised me most about this film was its approach towards art house. It is driven by off-the-wall action and spectacle (perhaps moreso than any Bond film), yet remains stylish in it's cinematography. Some of it is surprisingly deep. Not only does this film deliver a bigger insight into Bond's more human and personal side, but it is packed with metaphors and symbolism and bits of foreshadowing. Which, again, can be most likely be attributed to Marc Forster. It should also be said that this film is dark. Moreso than Casino Royale, or any Bond film I can think of. At the same time, it's not without a sense of humor. One thing that people tend to find in a Bond film is an inherent campiness, and it brought a smile to my face to see the dry, sometimes silly, humor still intact.

Again, this movie is certainly not without flaws, but it is a bold effort as a James Bond movie. It still dazzles and impresses, and will certainly play with your expectations.
5/10
Quantum of Solace
Lawrie-513 November 2008
Well where to start or when does it finish was almost my impression throughout the film.

James Bond has come along way, since it started it on the big screen and has some how survived since the early 60's to now, 40 years +. A lot of the earlier films are favourites of mine to From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Dalton's era and a couple of Brosnan's. Then we were introduced to Craig, Daniel Craig. In Casino Royale which I think I can speak for everyone here was awesome in more ways than one the reason it stands so tall amongst others. Its the source of James Bond, the debut of Ian Fleming character is what makes it so great. Very plausible and a joy to watch. The one other thing that stands out is how the film was shot It is Martin Campbell who directed it (Goldeneye before that) he totally understands was the public wants and if he had came back for Quantum it would of been a whole lot more enjoyable. Now onto Quantum

First things I noticed about Quantum was it was around 30 minutes less than Casino Royale. Secondly some jack the lad named Marc Foster directing it the only film I'd seen that he had done was Stranger than Fiction. Excellent film but has as much action Dr. No did. So how does Marc make up this all in Bond 22 by multiplying the body count in every scene and throwing the camera against the wall. The film to be honest was hellish on the eyes to watch when action scenes happened you could barely identify who was in the scene and what was going on, and the plot on the other hand was weaker than Moonraker. It was a shame to honest and its the directors fault in my opinion even if the plots weak at least make the film enjoyable to watch. Bring back Martin Campbell for the next one please. BE WARNED SIT AT THE BACK OF THE CINEMA WITH SOME SHADES ON YOUR GONNA NEED THEM OR YOUR GONNA GO BLIND !!
8/10
Solid Bond, much better than people initially thought!
Kimal90005 February 2022
Granted: After Casino Royale, this one was... well different. But watching it again today, it can't be denied this is a really good piece of cinema! The most subdued and introspective Bond film, but still with a lot of action and plot. This, alleged "worst Daniel Craig Bond-movie", runs circles around ANY Bond film before Casino Royale.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A solid Bond movie and Casino Royale act 2
vailsy16 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The revitalized Bond is frequently compared to the Bourne series and while stylistically the same, it's the direction the franchise is taking right now so why not? My only real complaint with this is that there isn't enough humour

Okay Bond's girlfriend just died but I had to wait around 50 minutes before I got a chuckle from Bond's comment about the handcuff's, and generally I found the movie improved with the appearance of Field's who is excellent

This movie picks up precisely where Casino Royale left off (the only Bond movie that I know of that has taken this approach).. the SMERSH agent, Mr White, that Bond kidnapped is now in the boot of his Aston Martin and he is being pursued on his way to meet M

Bond's main motive is to uncover Vesper's history and in particular to find out if she really loved him, and to do this he must infiltrate further into the QUANTUM organization who she worked with as a double agent

My main issue with QOS is that everything is too rushed, it's a very short film, and this really contrasts with the pacing of Casino Royale.. the editing in the car chase at the start of the movie for example is so hurried that it is barely watchable. Product placement is also o.t.t, and Bonds main gadget is basically his Sony Ericsson phone. Some unbranded and more imaginative gadgets would be nice

The ending of QOS is very good though and Bond finally gets closure on Vesper, who was basically manipulated into becoming a double agent by a person that did not even love her. Since she was manipulated, Bond can finally forgive Vesper

6.7 puts this on a par with The Man with the Golden Gun and amongst some of the poorest rated Bonds, which is ridiculous

A solid Bond movie. Recommended 7.5
5/10
Quantum
legobuilderpro9 October 2021
I'm going to say that this isn't a great sequel to the fantastic Casino Royale movie, which was disappointing to see.

Daniel Craig as James Bond is still the best part and feels like he is giving his all in the role but he has some bad dialogue when giving exposition.

The action was fine but it has multiple cuts during the action scenes, so I can't tell what is going on or understand what is happening.

Also the villain was weak and his plan didn't have high stakes to make it urgent.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A rough and tough, "beat'm up movie".
Vic_max16 November 2008
Words that describe this movie: gritty, tough, fast and action oriented. Bond fans differ in what makes a good Bond movie, so each individual fan will have to decide for themselves if this movie makes the grade.

For my tastes, the overall movie was good. It seemed to get better as it went on. I did have some gripes (see below), but the uncompromising raw action and tone was kind of refreshing in current movie environment.

The basic set up is that Bond is still filled with internal rage over the betrayal and death of his love from the previous movie ("Vesper"). He pursues those responsible without regard to human life. This becomes a problem for the British secret service as he pursues the links all the way to Bolivia, where a strange transaction is taking place.

GRIPES: Some of the actions scenes were a bit too fast (editing cuts) to visually follow. Judi Dench, who I greatly admire, didn't seem to have enough makeup this time - I know it sounds strange, but if you noticed something about her forehead, you'll get what I mean.

All in all though, this movie was a decent, heavy duty action movie. I'd say it's more of a "guy's" movie than one for gals. Great on its own terms.
4/10
where did it all go wrong ?
yas12013 November 2008
Went see the latest bond movie Quantum of Solace

Very disappointed and confused

yes the franchise may still make loads of money and break all sorts of box office financial records but like the little Irish waiter at the 5 star hotel said to George Best (famous footballer) whilst he lay next to his model glamour girlfriend and lots cash notes spread all over the bed with expensive champagne – where did it all go wrong Mr. best!

Well I can ask that very same question to the producers of the bond franchise

Poor movie name Bad theme song No classic opening bond barrel scene No classic bond music during movie No spectacular opening scene (just a confused car chase) No spectacular ending Boring and forgettable villains No humour No real bond charm Action scenes whilst exciting enough – well over done with use of camera tricks angles t Over use of m's role No q or gadgets No money penny No casino scene No use of words "my names bond James bond" Aston martin used beginning scene only The 2 main bond girls not allowed being more sexy and interesting London hardly shown or portrayed

The list of the movies faults go on unfortunately

Please for next bond movie go back to classic basics and see what happens I guarantee not only will make even more money but bring a smile back to the face of millions of people all over the world again

Dear Producers some ideas for you to think about:

A good future bond would be Clive Owen Ask a superstar director like James Cameron or Spielberg or Ridley Scott to direct you will be surprised how interested they would be and not as expensive as you might first think Next bond movie name - keep it simple and classical
2/10
Bond has been killed and replaced by an American special agent with a fancy mobile phone.
Hikaru-19 November 2008
Hollywood has done it again... Truly I did not expect that an icon as great as Bond could be so brutalized. It would seem as though the film is missing a few minutes in the beginning portraying Bond suffering an emotional trauma making him into this cold and frankly boring guy who has lost not only his charm but a hefty portion of grey matter. The bad guy is a joke as well! Not an evil mastermind or a ruthless overlord but rather a ratty little fellow with bad hair. Also i must note that opening credits were appalling in every way - music seemed to be created smashing together a bunch of instruments and the intro itself was as unimaginative as American cheese. In closure i would like to say that it HAS earned two stars in stead of one only because of the (mandatory) car chase scene.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A disappointing sequel
Velociraptor2568 November 2008
I don't mind having Bond films with a different style from the old ones. But while Casino Royale succeeded in making a good film out of this new style, this one fails.

The plot is mainly fine, tracking Bond as he follows each lead he finds, and travelling to various exotic locations in the process (incidentally, I wasn't impressed by the use of different fonts for each of the location captions), but the pacing starts dragging after a while. The content of the action scenes is very good, but they would be much more enjoyable if it wasn't for the camera work. It's quite shaky during some of the action, while the editing is much too fast and pretty annoying (although it usually doesn't prevent you from keeping track of what's going on).

Daniel Craig's acting as Bond has gone downhill from Casino Royale: he seems pretty flat most of the time. The main villain, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), is never as threatening as Le Chiffre. The main Bond girl in the film (Olga Kurylenko) is nothing special. I liked the second (Gemma Arterton) better as a character, but her presence is relatively brief and a little pointless.

We'll have to see how the Bond series goes from here, but whether they go back to traditional Bond, or continue in the same vein as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, the filmmakers will be better off taking more inspiration from the former than the latter.
5/10
Good fun, but getting further and further away from what made Bond, Bond.
witster1813 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I must say that I was encouraged by the opening. An action sequence followed by a good title song sung by Alisha keys and JAck White got us off and running.

Two decisions made this an average Bond film, at best. The first decision was to ride on Casino Royale's coat-tails. Continuing where Royale left off.... seems contrived and hurried. They should of left it all behind and started anew. The only weak aspect of "Royale" was the finale' with the building, and we pick up right were we left off here.

The second issue is a clear lack of gadgets. They started to disappear in "Royale", and they were extinct here. I know we lost the legendary Desmond Llewelyn, but did we have to lose the gadgets too? Or bring back John Cleese. I thought he was perfect for the role. It makes a little sense to have it scaled down in "Royale" because Bond was just becoming a double-O, but he's full-fledged here and should have all the royal toys at his disposal.

Quantum of Solace is nothing more than an above average action flick that has forgotten its' roots and, in so, it has forgotten its' audience and sacrificed a long standing reputation.

Finally, at the end of the film, the plot comes together in a big ol'jumbled mess. The final scene saves some browny points for it's furious finish but, in the end, this probably falls somewhere between The Living Daylights and Die Another Day on the Bond Totem pole.

Olga's a hotty, Craig is STILL bond... hopefully they'll see how the apple fell WAY to far from the tree on bond tradition and give us more Shaken Martini's, Gadgets, a new Q, and more substantial dialogue in the future.

Not to discourage anyone(fans and nonfans alike) from seeing it because it's NOT TERRIBLE - it's just not nearly as good as I'd hoped.

The clarity of the shots is amazing, but the editing and acting are a bit suspect, as is the storyline. The opening action sequence is a bit of a mess.

54/100 **1/2(outta5)

I understand Bond must 'evolve', and I like the new realistic approach to things, but do we really have to sacrifice the gadgets and one liners to accomplish that?
3/10
it's a bust, not a must.
projectmolcos17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
QUANTUM OF SOLACE – put bluntly, it's a bust, not a must.

Firstly, let's deal with what I like about it. As you may know, many of the trademarks (clichés IMHO) of the series do not make an appearance here: none of this Bond getting the girl at the end and all that malarkey, and that's perfectly fine with me: I thought it had gotten kind of boring and, given that they're in a period of reinvention with Bond, it was time it got dropped. I am also pleased that they've carried on the development of Bond as a much more complicated human being, and one that lives more by his skills and not his gadgets – again, I very much welcome this, for this is how Bond movies used to be (FROM Russia WITH LOVE, etc). I also think that getting Mathieu Amalric as the baddie was inspired, and Daniel Craig continues to impress with the role of Bond.

Doing fine, aren't we? But, wait, keep reading. Marc Forster (MONSTER'S BALL, EVERYTHING PUT TOGETHER, THE KITE RUNNER) is very good when it comes to the likes of those films, but I think a Bond movie was a change of pace too far, and the producers unwisely gave him his head on this one. For example, one of the things I love about the series is its high visual class and richness, and I am bitterly disappointed that this has been cast aside in favour of something akin to a 16mm TV documentary – fine for Jason Bourne, but not James Bond. Herr Forster chose to use his usual DoP, Roberto Schaefer, instead of guys like the excellent Phil Meheux or Alec Mills, both of whom have considerable experience of the Bond series, and know what needs to be done on these kind of gigs. Schaefer doesn't, 'nuff said! And that's just the tip of the iceberg…

There's worse to come: the plot is as clear as crude oil, with some scenes having the feeling of being edited to confuse you still further. Nice, eh? But the scenes with Giancarlo Giannini are what really take the biscuit, especially his death scene, which produced audible tittering in the audience, as Daniel Craig cradled him in his arms. It rivals Jake Gyllenhaal's declaration of unrequited love to Heath Ledger in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN as a masterpiece of unintentional comedy. How sad. Add to all this the crap song by Jack White and Alisha Keys (!), MK12's uninspiring title sequence, etcetera, and you have my biggest disappointment of 2008!

Stay sane, stay away!
2/10
The Same Kind of Compressed Cacophony as Music on the Radio These Days
Newairbus5 December 2008
Bond is a fragile creature. He can take an unlimited amount of battering in character but a limited quantity as a serialised story of an MI6 hero. With time, he has been fashioned to meet the "requirements" of an ever-changing audience, even though those on the cutting edge and in the vanguard probably don't watch Bond. We could stomach the shift to Pierce Brosnan, because he replaced the useless Timothy Dalton. We could bear the introduction of the female M, because we knew that Barbara Broccoli is at the producer's helm for these movies. We could grasp rather than gasp at the short-haired, homely Miss Moneypenny, because, well, the odds were that our own girlfriends sitting next to us in the cinema would look like her.

I suppose the newest modifications have come as a result of the belief in "anything goes" as long as the product has enough action and some decent girls in it. This belief extends even to the 007-song, which is much worse, if you believe, than Madonna or Chris Cornell's -- it sounds like a studio outtake and is instantly forgettable.

This time Bond is out to avenge the death of Vesper Lynd. From the earlier one, I can vaguely remember that she was an attractive young, sophisticated lady, who had gone to all the right schools, who teased Bond and who ultimately faced a horrendous death being handcuffed to an old elevator that went down into water in a tumbling house in Venice. Now, if that is the case, newcomers should at least be treated to a scene of Vesper's painting on the wall with Bond silently kneeling in front of it, or something, to remind us what really motivates Bond and a string of these brutal, fast-paced, immoral, licensed but M-disapproved killings. We're offered none of that but an endless parade of disposable villains and sidekicks, too (ref. Mathis and Fields' deaths, the latter executed in such a glib way evoking "Goldfinger"). It's telling that in this newest one, we won't see even a glimpse of Q, who designs the weaponry and cars. The closest tech thing to Bond is his mobile phone.

Namely, male audiences of the Bond franchise respect the action, but they also want a bit of nostalgia, humour, logic, dining, tech, music and depth. Logic and depth here are sorely M.I.A. The sequences have been edited into such fast-paced runs that it's not at all clear whether what Bond just did would have destroyed his enemies or backfired on himself. If he farts, it does not automatically mean that the villain be decapitated. The old Bonds were beautifully constructed, using period pace as the bricks and contemporary logic as the mortar. Those of today seem to be a bit too much to bear.

I would endorse Bond even if he read poetry to his now-or-then-squeeze or played Spanish guitar or went to the Sex Fair with Miss Moneypenny. Instead, Bond has returned as something of a modern, dysfunctional, ADHD-crippled, emotionless, humourless, tradition-amnesiac "scaffolder" (he fights more these days on scaffolds than in submarines.) His evening dress seems to be dirty more as a rule than an exception. The old Bond wore a nice tuxedo each time. He's scarred and he can't even order a Martini anymore but drinks anything with enough vodka in it. Have they blended "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" into Bonds? What an unlikely shandy.

The marriage is ugly. Daniel Craig should be divorced. Bond actors seem to come in two categories. The prime threesome is Connery, Moore, Brosnan. They lasted, the last of them until 2004. The inferior cast consists of Lazenby, Dalton, Craig. They were fired or should have been after one or two movies. Lest we forget, a lot of the 001-006s have gone M.I.A., K.I.A. or D.O.A., and this applies to the actors as well. This leaves room still for another Bond, the seventh one. If he were any good, he'd truly earn the 007 digit.
6/10
To Save The Day Bad-Boy Bond Breaks Every Rule
strong-122-4788853 June 2014
Opening with a wildly dangerous shoot-out along a treacherous coastal highway in Italy, Quantum Of Solace (or QOS, for short) immediately shifts into high-gear and swiftly accelerates into some of the most startling, and breath-taking action-sequences that I've seen in a mighty long time.

With marvellous, rapid-fire editing and astounding, death-defying stunt-work, QOS delivered the goods like the wallop of a sledgehammer.

In QOS a very-very cool, yet excessively violent, James Bond 007, goes rogue. And like an indestructible bad-boy hell-bent on total rampage, Bond breaks every rule (and a few noses, as well) along the way. It seems to me that no matter where Bond goes, double-the-trouble is always sure to follow. And with that trustworthy formula set into place, QOS all adds up to some sweet, sensational entertainment.

I'd confidently say that Daniel Craig, with a decidedly "less-talk/more-action" approach to his role, is, by far, the best James Bond to date. Craig is what I call a "natural" man. And he sure beats out those other blokes who have also played this part over the many years.

With this clearly being a British production I certainly picked up some obvious American antagonism throughout the story. At different times along the way various non-American characters (especially Bond) made some deliberately insulting remarks about the overall incompetence and questionable loyalty of the American "Secret Service". This blatant sneering at the CIA sure surprised me, considering that QOS was definitely a film geared to be played in American movie-houses.

And finally -

When it came to QOS's main villain, Dominic Greene, I thought he sucked long and hard on a goon's ass. He really did. This snivelling wimp struck me as nothing but a stupid arse to the 10th power. In my books, one would really have to struggle pretty hard to think of another turd less interesting than the likes of this dildo-headed Greene character. They really would.
1/10
Ian Fleming turned in his grave when this was released.
benjamin-senneck20 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a long time fan of the books (always valuing them higher than the books) I thought that finally the nail had been hit on the head when Danial Craig entered the role of James Bond in Casino Royale.

James bond isn't CIA, he isn't Jason Bourne and he certainly isn't IMF. The point of James Bond is that he is the Jeremy Clarkson of the spy world. He's politically incorrect, out of control and yet manages a swagger and style fitting of a Prime Minister.

This is lost in it's entirety in Quantum of Solace. Bond (who lost both parents as a child) is somehow grief ridden by the loss of a girl that he knew for all of 4 or 5 days. He then spends this entire film neglecting the very sense of duty that has always been instilled in Bond as a character to go on some revenge fulled conquest.

The plot is barely follow-able and where you manage to do so you wish you hadn't there is no "Bond girl" to speak of and any other elements of a good Bond film that you were hoping for are not present.

A catastrophic failure. Please bring back the Bond of Casino Royale.
5/10
Craig's Back, and it's a Helluva Stir
EijnarAmadeus26 November 2008
Daniel Craig's second appearance as James Bond is an actual sequel to his debut, 2006's Casino Royale. Were Martin Campbell succeeded with characters and plot, Monster's Ball-Stranger Than Fiction-Finding Neverland-director Marc Forster doesn't do what you'd expect him to do, give us some of that heartfelt passion, or some of the quirkiness, of his earlier movies, now he goes full-on the action-button. Fast-paced, explosive and packed with vengeance Quantum of Solace is a spectacle of a Bond-movie, not too many twists or turns, mostly a revenge-story with enough action and violence to shut Mr. Jerry Bruckheimer up.

Craig is awesome as Bond, he's got that rock-hard face and has that emotional depth over his love's death from Casino Royale, no earlier Bond can touch. Two Bond-girls - one throwaway, one angry -, the villain is a French lizard who could have got more screen-space but delivers enough of those bulgy eyes to make him quite memorable, Judi Dench is the inpatient M and all of that Moneypenny & Q jazz is thrown in the sea.

The visuals are Bond's finest yet, and they are elegantly combined with a peculiar and slick credits-intro (although the song doesn't really hit the spot), and charming introductions to Bond's travelogue through the world map. Some may miss Bond's dry-Martini and his wit, but this is a pretty dark and exciting ride with blasts to keep you awake through its surprisingly short runtime.
6/10
It is what it is.
naviddjalily31 January 2021
Look it is what it is. This is a James Bond film written during the writer's strike. What do you want? I love this franchise so much. I have watched all the old films with my family. They are all cool and hold a special place in my heart. But we can not and shouldn't judge a film while writers were being made to feel like stuff you'd flush without a moments notice. We could of got something cool. But we didn't. Now as far as I'm concerned this is the first direct sequel to a James Bond film. The action is great. The set pieces are electric. But nothing else you cans say about this. Enjoy it for what it is. Yes the dialogue isn't great. But some of it for me is quite ENJOYABLE. At least for me. Look at the end of the day no one is forcing you to watch this. You can easily piss off and watch your overrated Anime/Manga/DC/Marvel lackluster Netflix crap.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A dark and troubled Bond - and a million stunts
pedrothefish6 November 2008
I found the latest Bond film to be a compelling and exciting film - I enjoy how Daniel Craig is bringing life to this version of Bond - dark, troubled and driven - this Bond feels like less of a cartoon than the later films of the Pierce Brosnan version and the fact that I have been to see both of the Daniel Craig films at the cinema rather than waiting for them on DVD as had been the case in the past is a sign of how more engaged I feel.

This film starts off as if the director has been watching the Bourne films closely - rapid cutting and jerky filming of chases and fights makes for an uncomfortable start to the film - a feeling that is transferred to the emotions as the story unfolds.

The locations are at times stunning and the story complex - as many have suggested it is important you remember the ins and outs of Casino Royale if you wish to get the best out of this film.

The life of the secret agent portrayed is both brutal and cold - I imagine much more close to reality than some of the previous portrayals - to me that makes for a more genuine and credible film - but I can see how some fans may tire of this gritty reality and yearn for the comic book martini drinking sex mad playboy that has been part of the Bond heritage.

Well done Daniel Craig for the quality of the acting and the physical bravery involved in this role and also well done to Dame Judi for her continued excellent portrayal of M
4/10
If you're looking for Bond, you've walked into the wrong cinema screen
magicwings29 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
30 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looking down the checklist of what you get when you see the name "James Bond" on the poster of a movie, it seems that the electric reboot in 2006's Casino Royale missed out a substantial amount. Gone were the gadgets, the humour and the trophy girls – the post-Bourne Bond was all about the psyche of a thug. "Find Bond" barks M on more than one occasion in this outing and, in all honesty, I think most of the audience are still looking.

Following on just an hour after Casino Royale (marking the first direct sequel in Bond history), the difference is easy to see. Accompanied by a rock soundtrack, we find ourselves jerked all over the place in a flashy albeit very hard to follow car chase that sets the speed for the film and thankfully, it rarely lets up. Why "thankfully"? Well, not because of the lack of good action in movies nowadays. The problem with this film is that we need to have overblown set pieces and lots of things blowing up to keep our minds off the ridiculous and paper-thin plot.

It's a good thing Bond has a passport, because from the opening in Italy, he moves around the world faster than malaria. Moving from A to B with one line of dialogue stringing him along, he quickly destroys anything in his path – and manages to kill any lead MI6 have on the organisation that Mr White is a part of. However, the story really isn't as simple as that; director Forster tries to get inside the mind of Bond after the death of Vesper Lynd in Royale. However, this is where the failure begins, as we rarely see a side of Bond other than the brute, and this makes it very hard for the audience to even like him. There are only a few occasions where this matters, as the incredible set pieces quickly take our minds off the audacious yet faltering storyline and keep them on the adrenaline rush coursing through our bodies. An aerial dogfight is one such piece; there is an unexplainable need to ride a plane a matter of miles to a secret lair in a desert when 007 has a perfectly usable Humvee to drive. But this absurdity is instantly forgotten when he's attacked on all sides and a thrilling chase begins.

But what about the humour? The girls? The gadgets? All humour is lost, save for some – maybe three – one liners ("'We have people everywhere'? That's a bit cliché… I mean, florists say that" says M after interrogating the mysterious Mr White). The girls take a back seat for Bond (not in that way) because of the seeming importance of Lynd, and therefore seem awkwardly shallow – particularly Camille (played by Ukranian model Olga Kurylenko), who enters the scene as a backstabber and continues to manipulate Bond throughout the film. The second girl Bond comes across, Agent Fields, is a nod back to older, classier Bond girls… but it is only a nod, as she barely lasts five minutes in the film before she is found in another throwback to older films (a huge easter egg for Goldfinger fans). The final female lead is the hugely understated M, who has a much meatier role here, and Dench plays it with such a perfect mix of benevolence and impatience that it's hard to imagine back to the days when M was a man.

All the elegance and style of Royale is lost, all the thoughtfulness of Bond's mind is replenished with anger and a need for over-the-top violence. The girls are hollow, the humour misplaced, and the gadgets gone. So what on earth is there in this movie to watch? Let me put it this way. If the title character wasn't James Bond, agent 007 for MI6, in the 21st sequel to an adapted story, then this would be a hugely enjoyable action adventure film. As it is, the Bond we love is gone, and he's been replaced with a clone of Jason Bourne's younger sister.
6/10
My name is Bourne, Jason Bourne!
fairview-ncba1 December 2008
Reasons why I hated this new Bond movie:

1. Fast-paced editing and shaky cam ruined the elaborate action scenes. Today's cinematography is getting worst. Cut it out please!

2. Alicia Keys and Jack White's "Another Way to Die" is one of the worst and dullest opening theme song ever made for a Bond movie joining the roster of Madonna's "Die Another Day" and Cornell's "You know my Name". Such rubbish!

3. Icons related to Bond were deliberately strip off like the iconic catchphrase "My name is Bond, James Bond". Perhaps the producers were aware that there's an impostor that inhabits this movie. His name is Bourne, Jason Bourne!

5. Director Marc Forster is no good in directing a Bond movie. He just copied the directorial elements of the Bourne franchise. Poor Bond, once a hallmark of a great Hollywood movie now a pure copycat of Bourne. That is show business!

6. With all the violence and gritty realism, I'm aware that this is not a Bond movie. Bond is pure fantasy and the producers should realize that (Remember Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice!). I'm an avid fan of Bond since i was a kid. It allows me to embark into pure fantasies providing an escape hatch from harsh bitter reality we are all living. We all need to escape from today's dismal society where terrorism and world-wide economic instability may ruin our sanity. We all want to be a hero and save the day. But if Bond is living in this kind of gritty realism, do you still want to be Bond?
7/10
Superficially satisfying, but a reminder of lost potential
cutmaclass17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is more about Bond himself than the actual conflict. Because of this, there's more grandeur here than in the typical Bond movie, but there's also an unfortunate incoherency in the action sequences and an uncharacteristic reliance on a prior film and computer generation. Purists will find a bastardization along the lines of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but everyone else will be only slightly irked at most, as the cinematic flair of Casino Royale remains highly intact (even with the switch to sloppy, Dark Knight-eqsue CQC action). Now that Bond is over his whole Vesper hissy-fit, however, maybe the next installment will be more deserving of Daniel Craig.
9/10
Good Bond film
asim34522-131 October 2008
I'm not a fan of Bond and the only MAIN reason I watched this film was because I'm reviewing this movie for my English GCSE coursework and the trailer looked alright. This film delivered for than I expected. Quantum of Solace is a high-octane action film and is very good. I haven't seen Casino Royale and I don't intend to (as I pointed out - I'm not a fan of Bond). I would've given it a 10/10 but in my opinion I think it needed more sex in the movie. As it is a James Bond film I would've thought it would have had a lot more sex in than just one scene and all you see in that is him and Fields naked in bed, him kissing her back then her neck and they move into bed and that's the end of the scene. Overall it is a good film - I recommend it to any Bond fan (which I am not for the third time) but it needs more sex. (The ladies are fit though) 9/10
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Extremely thrilling, and a great contribution to the series
gloves193116 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have to say that was probably the most action packed bond ever. Sure, the plot wasn't as well structure as others, but unless you're a very powerful government it's pretty tough to destroy the whole world.

Either way, the movie is made to deliver really great action, and that's what it does. Fighting is a lot quicker and more realistic, bond performs like bond, and danger is constant.

The lack of Q, the gadgets, and money penny are probably because the movie is part of the whole prequel thing. It still works okay though, although it's a different feel. I think people are mad that they're changing the bond formula a bit, and making it more like the bourne series.
8/10
HORRIBLE Song! Good Bond, but not the best and a few plot holes.
DrStranglove20 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WARNING!!! SPOILERS!

A few notes:

  • Every one has been panning the opening song as the worst Bond theme-song ever. I tried really hard to like it, but failed. It was AWFUL! What ever happened to having serious singers do the song written by serious writers? Director must have owed this lot money....


  • I literally held my breath during at least two of the chase scenes. But why no "special features" on the Austin? Hell, bullet proof doors are not even on Q's level. I can have them on a Yugo for about $500.


  • Using an ecoterrorist as your villain is a bit of a stretch, but they did a fairly good job, I guess. I'm still not clear on what he was trying to do with the water... just doesn't click with me.


-Overall I didn't care for it too much, but I did go in with high expectations, probably hoping for another Casino Royale...

  • I would recommend the movie, but it's not the best of the genre. Still, if you remotely like Bond, so see it. You won't be disappointed. Didn't have the class of CR, or the plot, or girl, just doesn't really compair to it I don't think.


-Btw, why didn't the director of CR come back for this one? I think he would have been a much better choice. It seems EON or whoever always will have a decent or flat out amazing Bond movie... and follow it up with something less.
7/10
Daniel Craig owns Bond.
cosmorados6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So after the breakthrough movie that was "Casino Royale", Bond is back in "Quantum of Solace", and after a breakneck car chase to deliver Mr White, he is back in the thick of things, discovering the far reaching tentacles of the mysterious organisation that the Aforementioned Mr White (The villain from the end of the last movie) works for. After some more work, Bond discovers a slender lead in South America where he meets the beautiful Camille, a woman with her own problems and issues, and after another action set piece embarks on finding out more about the people that are after him and her, finding the link between the two, whilst trying to evade the CIA, his own compatriots and the bad guys as well.

It is true that the film has no big villain, but, what is intimated at within this film is that it is coming. Daniel Craig, who has been unjustly criticised for his portrayal of Bond is a man at odds with his own people as well as his own beliefs and we see that inner turmoil surface at a number of points in the film, however, in this film we get more of a glimpse of Bond as a fully polished article, the way he moves seems slicker, more nimble and this is reflected in his physique which is more about definition than bulk; his expressions, delivery and every nuance of his performance are outstanding.

Due to the writing also we get to see Bond in different lights, when he has to stay with a colleague who is not going to make it, he shows a compassion that we have never seen, because usually he arrives after they are dead and could do nothing, this time he has to deal with the fact that maybe, he could have done more, and we see a new side to him, that is refreshing.

The other big strength to the film is the action which is handled with real aplomb by Marc Forster, which, with the exception of a few moments, allows you to see, feel and react to the pummelling Bond receives in this outing, add to that a score that, although lacks memorability of some previous Bond scores, accompanies the action terrificly.

So, why is it getting slated? According to IMDb critics this film is no better than the sheer awful "Wanted". This is nonsense and like saying that "Batman and Robin" is 0.1 less than "Batman Begins", such is the complete lack of perspective. The film does have three major drawbacks, the first is the terrible theme tune that re-crops up in David Arnold's score bringing the mood of the piece down, rather than enhancing it like "You know my name", the next downside is the fact that M always seems shocked when Bond kills people who are trying to kill him and not useful ...Duh! that's his job, and the final thing that the film misses that Casino has, is charm. Bond is charming in Casino and due to the story arc in this film he lacks the charm that he has in abundance in the last outing which is what reduces this score by three (See what I did)

However this does not stop this being a cracking ride and a far better second outing which is alway a nightmare for any new Bond, so kudos to Craig, for sticking with it and proving that he was no lucky punk with the first film.

007 out of 10.
5/10
A Quatum Of Outrage
vonbergner18 November 2008
"There is a hospital at the other side of the city" Hm..., I thought, ...wouldn't it have been better to build the hospital in the center? But this was just one of many silly phrases in a picture that is spoiled by average acting, poor filming and disastrous cutting. Story lines in Bondfilms never really fitted, but at least there were always actionscenes, that were up to the highest level of what was possible each time. In this picture every single actionscene is ruined by poor filming and catastrophic cutting. In combatscenes the makers didn't even try to make a choreography. Just some shaky shots an all Bond's enemies go down. It is really sad that Martin Campbell didn't sign up for the sequell after doing a great job in Casino Royal. So now the German guy messed it up, which is a pity, as i am German too. All in all a huge disappointment.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A barrage of action and thrills sacrifices plot and development
DonFishies15 November 2008
In a year of disappointments, Quantum of Solace is no different.

Picking up moments after the finale of Casino Royale, Quantum follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) as he tries to discover more about a mysterious organization (codenamed, obviously, QUANTUM), and the shady dealings of "philanthropist" Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).

I am not sure if I was expecting a bit too much after the greatness (minus the finale) of Casino Royale, but this film feels miles apart from it. Despite having Paul Haggis back in the writer's chair, Craig acting as Bond again, and critical acclaim sensation Marc Forster behind the camera, the film just lacks the spark that made Royale so interesting.

For one, the film has little to no plot taking place. While Royale was heavy on story and plot, Quantum allows this to totally take a back seat to the action. It takes about a half hour before the players (minus Craig) start moving towards a mere suggestion of what the film regards, and even then, it takes the rest of the movie to put it all together. Not because it is such a complex plot, but because we are only given momentary exchanges of dialogue before something else happens. And with little focus on plot comes even less on development. You know Bond's motives if you have seen Royale. But if you skipped that one, you will be totally lost attempting to decipher what he is doing. The main Bond girl, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), takes the entirety of the movie to reveal her motives. Supporting characters like Amalric's Greene get the mere moments between action scenes to get his bits in, but at the expense of developing even less than Mads Mikkelson's unabashedly underdeveloped Le Chiffre.

The action scenes, while choreographed amazingly well, seem to take away from the film. Opening with a high speed car chase, the film never takes a moment to breathe before another action scene takes place. The first forty minutes amount to more than half the time focusing on action, and very little given to any dialogue or story. Sure, the action junkie will be reveling in their glory, but everyone else might feel like the film is being a bit tedious and underhanded with what they want to do for the remaining time. It feels like the majority of time was spent here, and everyone just forgot to add in the gaps to fill the moments between action scenes. I realize that an obvious complaint of Casino Royale was how slow moving and not-so-action-orientated it was, but that does not mean it is acceptable to do away with everything else just to run at a totally break-neck pace and filling in more action as it goes along.

The editing is a bit problematic as well. In a scene taking place after the brazenly bizarre credits, the shots are cut so quick that it is nearly impossible to see who is doing what. This was a problem with some scenes in Batman Begins, but at least those characters did not start to blend into each other as the scenes went on. It continues to be quickly edited as the film progresses, but by then it is too late to fix anything. I realize the filmmakers had wanted to make a quick, painless sequel (the first official one in the never-ending Bond saga), but it feels like more of a last minute Director's Cut addition to Casino Royale than anything else.

Craig, in his second round as Bond, suffers because the film paints him into a corner of being an unapologetic revenge seeking bad ass, and nothing else. Even during the minor slow moments where Bond is clearly searching for clarity, he still gets no time to make himself appear as anything different. The gritty and heavily masculine touch of the character is amped heavily here, and makes it very hard for Craig to really prove his performance chops. He does not fumble at all like I imagined he would, but he is not overly impressive either. He never even gets a chance to say the trademark "Bond, James Bond" line at any point because of how fast-paced the film is. He does what he can, but the proclamations of his being the best Bond ever appear to have been heavily exaggerated.

Kurylenko and Amalric both turn in convincing performances as the Bond girl and Bond villain respectively, but neither get the opportunity to really chew on any scenery. Kurylenko spends most of the film sobbing, or looking helpless or angry, while Amalric adds next to nothing as a villain. For the majority of the film, having a cardboard cutout replace him probably would not have made much of a difference on the overall impact of the film. Jeffrey Wright returns, and gets even less to do than before, and Judi Dench is again given the chance to play M, and to great effect here. As Bond slowly becomes more involved trying to discover the facts of the company, Dench gets more involved with what is going on. It makes for some interesting banter between her and Craig, and provides a much needed social and contemporary context to a character sadly missing any real traits.

The film is not a bad film in the least. The action sequences (or at least, most of them) are quite thrilling, and translate well on screen. The story, when something is actually being said, is quite unique and interesting to these times. Craig's acting even does some form of good at some points. An homage to Goldfinger was also particularly well done.

I just think I went in expecting far too much from Quantum of Solace. Granted you can take partial plot holes, very little story or plot, a whole plethora of action, and Craig looking like Craig, you may truly enjoy it. But for everyone else, you may be out of luck.

6/10.
7/10
Good but not as good as the previous one
nospam-47812 November 2008
I really wanted to like this but it seems I had high expectations derived from the previous one.

The good: The new brutal Bond is still present, good pacing, excellent shot locations, excellent action scenes, believable storyline (have they seen Zeitgeist Addendum?), no fancy gadgets etc

Unfortunately... here come the bad: Seeing it from a distance, its like they've put a series of action sequences so there's no real "pause" in the film where the characters can become emotional or closer to each other. The leading girl is always distant, the "easy" girl falls and disappears way too easily and all peripheral characters have no real significance. Bond does not "bond" with anyone, neither anyone else tries to bond with ... Bond (LOL)

Looking forward to the next one.
6/10
Not Casino Royale - but bring on the next part........
michael-dovey-131 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the triumphant re-vamp that was Casino Royale, it was always going to be difficult to follow the emotional impact (and universally positive reviews/box office) - think Diamond's Are Forever following on from O.H.M.S.S - so you knew regardless of what followed the producers were going to be on a hiding to nothing.

Instead of this we get a sequel - which starts off with a car chase and doesn't let up until the end, when Bond finally puts to bed the emotional blindfold from before and sets it up nicely for a more Bond-esquire adventure next time around.

Sure Bourne's a lazy comparison (as many others have indeed stated) - and it is a little disappointing to have so many elements of that fine franchise in 'our Bond series' - but the set pieces are action packed, the locations fantastic, and the chemistry between Bond and M the best for years.

Alas the main sticking point is the lack of script - and whilst I appreciate a stripped down Bond for the 21st Century, now the moodiness and hurt has gone let's hope they let loose and actually let him enjoy himself again, and then Daniel Craig can cement his claims as the best Bond ever.

Very good, but not great - but well worth watching, especially for the Opera scene, which is the best sequence seen for many a film - but can we have a better villain next time around please?
5/10
Out of Touch and Generic, It's a Far Cry from the Casino
drqshadow-reviews25 January 2013
It was bound to be tough to match the runaway success of Casino Royale, but this doesn't even seem to make an effort. As generic action pictures go, it's fine: the screen is well-stocked with explosions, cars and women, and the production is extremely stylish. It does assume quite a lot of the viewer, in terms of remembering names, faces and circumstances from the preceding chapter, but as a direct sequel much of that can be forgiven. Solace's major flaw - and, as a Bond picture, this is utterly unforgivable - is that it routinely gets caught up in dull, blasé situations and lingers. A long stretch near the end of the second act nearly put me to sleep, and the plot never seems like it's too concerned about where it's going, nor does Bond himself. Several action scenes had potential (the flick is fully equipped with chases by land, sea and air) but the director is so head-over-heels for Bourne-styled hand-held shots that he completely smothers us with them. Daniel Craig rarely gets the chance to shine in this chapter, his foil seems overmatched and insubstantial, and the big payoff at the end comes off as a cheap, hollow moral victory. Underwhelming all around, and completely lacking in the grins and winks that gave previous films in the series their character.
6/10
"The name's Bo-" NO! We're still not doing that.
Grant_Price9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well this is disappointing. Despite Quantum of Solace's best interests, it has fallen into that "Revamp the James Bond series by introducing a new actor and placing emphasis on realism but only for one film before reverting back to the previous ostentatious formula that the majority of Bond films employ even though nobody, except morons, wants this to happen." Therefore, QoS is heavy on explosions, vehicle chases, one-dimensional megalomaniacs and things that would never happen, and light on plot, characters and most of the qualities that made Casino Royale such a success.

Quantum of Solace picks up mere hours after Casino Royale left off, and director Marc Forster immediately foists a badly executed car chase onto the audience. It is like he is basically saying "Seriously, it is going to be variations on this for 104 minutes. Transformers is my favourite film." Forster seems to have graduated from the Bourne trilogy school of directing, which means audiences have to pay fastidious attention in order to discern any concrete happenings from the shaky cameras filming it. There's action going on there, sure, but we cannot see it.

Following the car chase, serious Daniel Craig Bond flies to several destinations around the world (whose names are announced every time in a variety of different fonts and colours, which makes it look like the Powerpoint presentation of a twelve year old), shoots people without hesitation to show the audience how emotionally detached he is, saves a girl for no reason who by the law of film coincidence turns out to be the centre point of what little story there is and finally ends up in a trademark explosive house in the middle of nowhere filled with nothing but catwalks, propane tanks and bad guys. At many points it is difficult to know or care why Bond is going to Russia or London or Germany and Forster's lame attempts to misdirect the audience with yet another close up of Bond's face after he disarms and kills somebody within 3 seconds does nothing to appease this confusion. The political ambiguity and underhandedness between the USA and UK is perhaps the only aspect of the story that works, although the implications are never properly explored as that would be making some sort of statement and may offend at least four or five people.

Daniel Craig plays Bond like he did in Casino Royale; it worked then because there was an underlying humour to many of his lines. This time around, the scriptwriters evidently decided time spent being funny and cool could be spent not talking and killing instead. He is still the best person in the world ever to wear a tuxedo though. Bond girl Olga Kurylenko makes about as much impact as she did in Hit-man, which is none at all, although she does get thrown head first through a glass table and shakes it off like it was a minor irritation. Fish-eyed Mathieu Amalric on the other hand, who plays evil genius Dominic Greene, is instantly memorable as the Bond villain whose mêlée fighting abilities include unintentionally hilarious screaming. He sounds like Björk.

Minor characters are killed almost as quickly as they are introduced. One is Gemma Arterton, who plays Agent Fields, sent to bring Bond back to London but sleeps with him instead (obviously) and then, in a clumsy nod to Goldfinger, is killed after being drowned in oil. KthxFieldsbi! Another is Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), whose death makes Bond seem callous and unlikeable. Finally, Jeffrey Wright, one of the most versatile and engaging actors around, is criminally underused as Felix Leiter. He is reduced to "man with beard sitting around glowering at everybody" and when he finally gets to say something it is overshadowed by, surprise, Bond being chased.

Quantum of Solace is by no means terrible but utterly fails to scale the heights of intelligence and enjoyment that Casino Royale reached in 2006 and, though Bond argues "You don't have to worry about me", the seeds of doubt in the Bond franchise have once again been sown.
3/10
Quantum Of S..t
alank-1623 February 2009
Bad movie. To fast story, not deep. Daniel Craig is not suitable for a character of James Bond. Roger Moore was the heart and soul and I believe the golden boy of James Bond Movies. He was a charmer, he was funny with his comments, elegant and extremely appealing. The only bad acting and the only minus in former bond movies were fight scenes which more or less look childish. Everything else was very good. Craig is just a brute and nothing more. The relationship between Q and Bond in last two movies is very, very disturbing. All in all I personally think they shouldn't make any more James Bond with Craig or with bad stories like the last one which makes the movie even less enjoyable.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too fast, not enough depth.
TheDentist1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went into the QOS last night after creeping me and my 9 friends in to the middle of the huge queue. We got in to the cinema and were excited as the rest of the full cinema was. The first shots are very nice, panning over the river and glances of the car and bond, but then the action kicks in and you can't tell who is who. The film continues in this way throughout the film. You see in the Bourne films, where they have the shaky camera style but you can see whats going on? In QOS, you have the shaky camera style but you can't see whats going on. There is not enough scenes where there is no fighting or action, the action took up easily about 85% of the film. You felt as though you needed a poker game or something like that.

The end however, the very end, there was a very good scene with bond meeting vespers ex- boyfriend which was what the film needed more of, good scenes like that.

If this wasn't a James bond film it would be a forgettable mediocre action movie.

I was expecting a film as good as casino royale, possibly even better which a director like marc foster. Such a disappointment. =(
8/10
The new Bond is better
Enchorde11 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Recap: Still shaken by Vesper's betrayal and death Bond continues to unravel whatever secret organization she belonged to. His leads point to Dominic Greene, an highly regarded environmentalist and philanthropist who has a side business of overthrowing governments. But Greene has very high connections in a good many countries, and Bond suddenly finds himself alone, at odds with his own management on who is friend or foe.

Comments: The second chapter in the "new" Bond, and even if the old ones are good, Casino Royale and now Quantum of Solace, in my mind, has revived the franchise. Daniel Craig does a great Bond, a little more serious and dark, but still with a touch of the unique humor that only Bond has.

Quantum of Solace is a full paced action from beginning to end, and that is both its strength and weakness. It is highly entertaining full of exciting duels and chases, at land, sea and air. There is never a dull moment. There is always the next step in his mission, the next fight. However, because of that the movie never shifts down a gear to let the character develop or the mysterious story develop further. Also there is no time to be deviously sneaky or learn about new gadgets. I know I said I liked the more serious Bond, but at least an appearance of Q would have been fun.

Olga Kurylenko does her part as the Bond-girl well. But she too is all action, because of the aforementioned lack of time to develop character. We get a brief introduction of her history in passing, but it is mostly here a little more character development might have been good. Bond we already know quite a lot about, or at least we think we do.

One thing I also like about Bond, it is the promise that there will be more. There is clearly more to work with in this storyline, and Bond will return. I also wish he would return a little sooner.

8/10
6/10
not as bad as I remembered it
brescd0128 November 2021
I watched this after many years and to re-see the Craig Bonds after his final bow, which I found so disappointing. This film grows on me. I realize the part of it I hated the most, the plot line concerning a corrupt general whom Kurylenko must kill from revenge, and the showdown at a strange hotel in the Bolivian desert, does not outweigh the film's considerable virtues. I forgot how lovely an actor Giancarlo Giannini is, I found his cameo actually rather beautifully done. Gemma Aterton is actually a very good Bond girl #2. Dench is excellent no surprise. So are Kinnear and Jesper Christensen and Wright. All excellently cast and I realize Christensen did an excellent job of creating a new character in the Bond universe, one that Fleming did not author. Kurylenko is better than I remembered and actually this might be one of her most sincere performances. Amalric I forgot is a first rate actor and excellent if understated villain. Finally there is Craig himself, and he really is a first rate Bond and nicely maintains the continuity from Casino Royale. Action is first rate for the most part. The overall plot line of a criminal organization's attempt to control clean water, seems especially relevant and prescient now and probably one of the more believable threads in the Bond movie-verse. So I would give this Bond film another look, it ages well.
1/10
What happened?
igorturban26 March 2009
As a longtime Bondfan I don't know what to say. I can't defend this movie because it is incredibly dull from start to finish.

Did the 2nd unit take complete control of the first half of the film? Long action scene -- 1 min dialogue -- long action scene -- 1 minute dialogue -- long action scene etc. etc... There's no attempt from the director to build up some kind of atmosphere or intrigue. The story is weak and there is no memorable dialogue at all. Even the editing is a mess and makes the film painful to watch sometimes.

Daniel Craig is rather anonymous in the whole film. He is more Bourne than Bond, and it seems like he just waiting for his paycheck. I liked him in Casino Royale but after this film I am not sure if he has what it takes to carry the mantle in 3-4 films. Anyway, James Bond Will Return! Well, hopefully.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A curious mix of Quality
davidmvining10 March 2020
Apparently, the most interesting parts of this movie's story were come up with on set and the least interesting parts were the actual script. Paul Haggis delivered the film's final draft two hours before the writers' strike began and the production didn't wait for it to end. They went straight into production, but they wouldn't have been making up stuff on the fly if they had been confident of the draft they had in hand. From what I've read, everything about Bond's rage and emotional journey was stuff that Daniel Craig and director Marc Forster came up with while shooting, while the overwritten plot around a secretive criminal organization was in the Haggis draft.

A lot of grief goes to the movie's embrace of Jason Bourne style action filmmaking, and I understand that. It's a visual aesthetic that a lot of people simply don't like, but I don't have an inherent problem with it. I think Forster actually handles the format rather well, within the box of that type of filmmaking. The pieces are small and frantic, but they do add up to a rather cohesive whole that I can discern. Ironically, it's clearer than the more traditionally filmed The World is Not Enough. It's not at the quality of Paul Greengrass's The Bourne Supremacy, but it's still good enough.

The movie picks up moments after the end of Casino Royale with Bond speeding away with Mr. White in his trunk after having shot him in the leg at the end of the previous adventure. He takes his captive to M in Sienna, Italy, where Mr. White promptly escapes by declaring that they have people everywhere and a long-time aide to M turns on them instantly, killing all but Bond and M. Bond chases the double agent and kills him, but lets Mr. White escape.

Bond then sort of goes rogue, but not really, in investigating the organization that Mr. White referred to, taking him to Haiti where he finds Camille Montes and Dominic Greene. Camille is Dominic's lover, and Dominic is the CEO of Greene Planet, a major corporation that does a lot of ecological and environmental work. It's obvious that there's more to him, of course, when he deals with a South American general in search of funding for a coup and Dominic is happy to provide it while also threatening Camille's life.

The action scene that follows is confusing, though. Not in terms of literal action, but in terms of motive. I do not understand why Bond intervenes. I suppose he's trying to save Camille from the clutches of the general, but after he gets her away, he just dumps her off to the first porter he sees with a comment about how she's seasick. It's weirdly callous and he's placing her right back in danger. If it wasn't for her safety, was it for the general's safety since Camille was going to kill him? Why would Bond have any interest in that? Intervening in something tangential like that just ignites interest in his presence. It's a weird and seemingly pointless action scene.

The action then moves to Austria where the secretive organization, now known as Quantum, meets at an opera. It's weird. While a production of Tosca plays, they talk to each other in the audience through earpieces. Bond steals one, hears enough information and ruins the party, taking pictures of some obvious members who get up and leave. I love the idea of giant secretive organizations, but the effort to make their meetings interesting often ends up feeling odd instead of intriguing. Instead of just using basic communications technology in the privacy of their homes, they go out into the open and talk to each other during an opera? Sure, it looks good in the film, but it makes no sense.

We then follow Bond as he goes to Bolivia where Dominic has a big party announcing some big something or other in a fundraiser. Bond and Camille get clues to a remote hotel in the desert where the final confrontation takes place. There are many explosions and the good guys win.

I think part of my problem with the movie's plot is that it tries very hard to hide what the bad guy's plan actually is. We spend about three-quarters of the film thinking that it has to do with oil (even going so far as to kill the second Bond girl, Gemma Arterton, by filling her lungs with and covering her with oil in a visual replay of the golden girl in Goldfinger). However, the plot isn't about oil, it's about cornering the water of Bolivia. There's an important point that comes very late in the film that Bolivia is in the middle of a water crisis. It's shoved very late in the film and would have been good framing information to have early if the movie was more interested in telling a story than tricking the audience.

I am not a fan of this film's plot or antagonist. It's tricky instead of intriguing. The antagonist is dull and ends the film in an action beat that feels really out of place. However, there is some interesting stuff that Bond goes through. It begins the movie assuming he's filled with rage towards Versper from her actions in Casino Royale and towards the people who turned her against him. He works through that process as he learns that he doesn't need to kill everyone, maxing out his License to Kill, essentially in a mirror journey with Camille. She's also driven by rage against the general and kills him, while Bond sees how it drives her and actually ends up trying to pull her back. This is enhanced by Bond's interactions with Mathis, the MI6 agent he turned against in the previous film because of Le Chiffre's admission that Mathis worked for him (which turned out to be a lie). Holding Mathis as he dies, Bond sees a path forward out of rage. It culminates with the movie's final scene in Russia when Bond confronts Vesper's supposedly dead Algerian boyfriend who's actually a Quantum asset and he lets him live, turning him over to authorities instead of exacting revenge. It's a surprisingly well-made journey for Bond, and I think it works reasonably well.

It's just stuck in a movie that doesn't deserve it.

The action is fine, the character work is good, but the plot around it is needlessly confusing and the antagonist is a joke. It's a real mixed bag of a film that I want to like a whole lot more than I do. But, alas, I simply can't get past my issues with it.
5/10
Not As Good As Casino Royale
killbill_2820 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the 22nd Bond movie in the series. Quantum of Solace continues the high octane adventures of James Bond from Casino Royale. Picking up literally hours after the previous film left off, after being betrayed by Vesper. 007 fights to make his latest mission personal and bloody. Pretty much the same style film the Casino Royale was but not as good in story and pace. The film does have some good stunt work with very little CGI used. But its missing Bond elements like Casino Royale did, there's no "MoneyPenny", "Q", Gadgets, and there's very little Bond music used in the film, except the end credits where the play the Bond theme. The classic gun barrel scene does return but you don't see it till the end of the film before the end credits role. This latest installment for James Bond is good I recommend people go see it because its James Bond but it does share the same passion for what Casino Royale did.
9/10
An over-all impressive film
TheHande7 November 2008
Daniel Craig continues to offer us more of his specific type of Bond. He's blunt and straight-forward, his witticisms aren't as colourful but he has a lot of heart. This movie ties up the loose ends from the previous one and in that manages to not only match its quality but also go beyond.

The film has a feel of a good Bond film. The story has a global feel, but instead of being driven largely by action, Bond makes some smart choices and over-comes all odds with determination. This is one of the best aspects of this film since it seems to have a clear on-going narrative and the motives of the characters are much more clear this time around.

It's also nice to see old faces returning. Olga Kurylenko performs well, although her performance may seem very familiar to those who've seen her in Hit-man and Max Payne. She none-the-less provides the film with a fairly sympathetic female lead. I was also happy to see the film have a little bit more levity to it which helps balance its more grittier and serious parts.

Over-all, Quatum of Solace feels like a whole film. My biggest regret is that some of the action-scenes, while appropriately intense were a little difficult to follow due to violent camera-shaking. Beyond this minor flaw the film is a definite step up for Craig and the current Bond-series. I can't wait to see what's in store next.
9/10
Powerful Solace
jon.h.ochiai15 November 2008
Daniel Craig may be the screen's most powerful and dangerous Bond. He embodies a ferocious focus and intensity as Agent 007. I had read in a "Playboy" interview that Craig got physically bigger so that Bond would look like he could kill anyone. Director Marc Forster's "Quantum of Solace" is the decidedly dark and brutal tale of vengeance and solace. Under his direction the action is visually spectacular, visceral, and menacing. In the opening Bond (Craig) precariously navigates through a high speed chase on a coastal road in Italy. Subsequently, Bond battles traitor Mitchell (strong Glenn Foster) after both breathtakingly crash though a church glass ceiling. All the fighting has martial arts flair—kick-boxing and aikido. The gun play is deadly and precise. Daniel Craig's Bond is even more singular in purpose than "Casino Royale". This is an unexpected turn with Marc Forster at the helm. Forster among other films directed "Finding Neverland". Forster along with Academy Award Winner Paul Haggis ("Crash" and "Million Dollar Baby"), and co-writers Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade create the darker Bond and shed insight into the man he eventually becomes. To that end Daniel Craig is amazingly powerful.

"Quantum of Solace" resumes where "Casino Royale" ended. Seems that Mr. White (calmly evil Jesper Christensen), the man responsible for Vesper's death, is part of a clandestine global organization Quantum. Vesper was the love of James's life. Consequently, Bond seeks revenge on the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's death—that would be entrepreneur ecologist Dominic Greene (shifty Mathieu Amalric). In his mission seemingly governed by inconsolable rage Bond leaves an aftermath of death and destruction. Bond's concerned mentor M (the strong and amazing Judi Dench) warns Bond, "When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go." Bond reminds M, "You don't have to worry about me." Fearing that James may turn rogue, M pulls the network from Bond, leaving him an island. As his last resort, Bond seeks out Mathis (world weary Giancarlo Gianni), the man who betrayed him in "Casino Royale". Mathis discerns Bond's wounded soul. He tells him that Vesper loved him. Bond replies, "…Until the moment she betrayed me." Craig is brilliant in masking Bond's pain in his focused rage. Ultimately, whatever happens, he has to let it go.

Bond aligns with an unlikely partner in vengeance—the beautiful Russian Camille (strong and stunning Olga Kurylenko). Camille had become Greene's lover so that she can kill his business partner General Medrano (arrogant and smug Joaquin Cosio). Camille bares the physical scars and the emotional anguish of the General's horrific acts upon her family. It is unclear exactly what Quantum has to do with all this, but Greene's motives are anything but altruistic.

Kurylenko is surprising. As Camille she is not all what she seems. She is smart and embodies a warrior's spirit. Here Forster and Haggis poignantly comment on the futility and cost of vengeance. In a quiet moment Camille asks James if he had killed the man responsible for the death of the woman he loved. James says, "No, not yet." Camille confesses, "Tell me when you do… I'd like to know how it feels." In middle of the Bolivian desert before both embark on their missions of vengeance Bond instructs Camille, "This kill is personal… make it count…" Cold harsh words. The paradox is that dispassionate vengeance is always personal, and it only costs the exacter. The understated partnership of Craig and Kurylenko is powerful in "Quantum of Solace". Forster orchestrates some of the most spectacular roof top chases, deadly fight scenes, and electrifying aerial sequences. Amidst it all Craig and Kurylenko generate the emotional resonance. And in the end we don't get some flip line, rather an insight into the part of himself that Bond forfeits to become 007.

If there is one weakness, it is the villain Greene. As played by Amalric, he is not a formidable rival to Craig's Bond. Even Kurylenko is stronger. Granted Craig's Bond is perhaps the screen's most forceful. However, this was also the case in "Casino Royale". Perhaps, in the next Bond, Haggis creates a villain equal in persona to Craig's Bond.

"Quantum of Solace" is perhaps the best Bond movie. It is not perfect. However, it is hard edged and relentless, delivering a resounding catharsis. Daniel Craig is amazing. Olga Kurylenko is nearly his equal. "Quantum of Solace" is one of the year's most satisfying movies.
10/10
Forget the know it all critics, this is a great Bond Film
georgefoman30 November 2008
Seeing too much negative criticism about this film I had to leave a comment.

I hate when people go to an action movie and get upset when they see an action movie.

This film has all the Bond glamor, and top notch action sequences I have seen to date. The film is great at developing the bond character, something we never see in old bond films. I feel like after every bond film, his slate is wiped clean and nothing from the previous films affects the character in the next. This movie is propelled by what happened in Casino Royale, and I am very happy the franchise is doing this. Bond's character is being developed, and people find it hard to accept change, which is probably why all the comments are not raving about this film. All I have to say is, see it for yourself, you won't be disappointed.

Acting, directing, writing, and action is excellent. I think Daniel Craig has saved this franchise from disappearing.Great film
6/10
An abundance of action with poor story development leaves a bittersweet taste
justin_philpott16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went into Quantum of Solace will little expectations. I knew it would be hard to follow up Casino Royale. It is usually tough to make a sequel that stacks up to the predecessor. OK, The Dark Knight is a rare exception.

The movie opens with James Bond in a high speed car chase. What is a James Bond movie without some sort of car chase? And, you're probably wondering: "What could be wrong with that?" This chase scene is filmed with super-fast camera "snapshots". I am guessing Marc Foster was attempting to give viewers a shot of adrenaline and put them in the car with the drivers. It fails miserably. You never really know what you're watching, or who is in what car. For an scene that clearly cost a lot of money to produce, there is very little bang for buck.

There are a countless number of cool action scenes in this movie. I especially loved the scene when James Bond and Camille jump out of what is left of a cargo plane with only one parachute. The chute opens just in the nick of time.

The story Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis created for this sequel was much better than I had been hearing. The only problem is, the story is never fully developed due to an immense amount of non-stop action and the potential is never fully realized. In CasinoRoyale, I found the villain character, Le Chiffre, perfectly developed. An engaged audience member would be able to see through his exceptional intelligence at his character flaws and understand the reasons for his madness. In Quantum of Solace, I thought there was very poor character development for Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko) and Dominic Greene (played extremely well by Mathieu Amalric). Other than the Bolivian President being responsible for her father's death, we know nothing about Camille. We know even less of Dominic Greene, other than is a greedy, rich business man. But why is he the way he is?

There was really no time for any story or character development. After all, the movie runs for only around 90 minutes. I guess this will allow for theaters to have more showings of the movie. Something has to pay for those special effects. Another half hour of story development would have gone along way. There is not enough time to digest what is going on. I was often wondering how James Bond got from one place to another.

Some other notes: You should see Casino Royale before seeing Quantum of Solace. It is almost a must. There is no 2 minute recap before the movie starts like on some of your favorite T.V. shows after a to be continued episode.

My whole family went to see the movie; this includes my mother and sister. Both of them absolutely disliked the movie. They had no idea what was happening. Probably not the best date movie.

It is hard not to be impressed with some of the action sequences. And the movie still has the every important "coolness factor" associated with it. Olga Kurylenko is absolutely stunning. If they are going to keep spending this kind of money on Bond films, it might be a while before we see another one with the current state of the world's economy.

See this movie on the big screen. It will not be as good at home on DVD. Rating: 6/10.
7/10
Plenty of action
drpainters6 October 2021
Tons of action, short runtime , decent enough story. Really just 2 people out for revenge against the main villain. Worth the watch.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bring back the Connery/Moore style
BobGoran26 March 2009
A very confusing Bondfilm. This looks like just another action movie, and not a very good one. The editing is too Bourne like and not very effective. Forster's direction makes the film look rushed. None of the characters are memorable, not even Bond.

The story is very weak and there is far too much action. I missed classic lines, style, wit and some TRUE Bond-moments! There is a lack of originality here, sadly.

I think it is OK to remove the gadgets and Moneypenny but please, at least keep Bond in there next time.

2/10
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond? What Sort of Bond is this? Single worst Bond Film ever made, It doesn't even deserve to be called a Bond film!
s16221628 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After all the long wait of at last going to see this film, I went expecting a Bond film and I came out bitterly disappointed.

What sort of Bond is Daniel Craig? Connery was a cultured gentleman, lets forget Lazenby, Moore was humorous but not to an extreme and was able to mix it in with the action, Dalton was gritty with a darker sense of humour, but again not to an extreme and Brosnan was a combination of all three.

Craig however has non of these previous qualities, whilst in past films there would be humour and Bond would only kill a few people, not everyone and in most cases it would have an element of fun to it. Here, it is completely cold, way too gritty, humourless, and no one who crosses Bonds path lives, they all die usually in a bloody and over the top fight. In the Spy Who Loves me for example, Bond lets a villain fall off a roof by brushing him away, but afterwards a funny comment is made by him so it makes the whole thing seem funny as well, but in Quantum of Solace, it is completely cold blooded and unBond when Craig does it and he does not even seem to care when he is told he told that he killed a Special Branch officer by doing it.

It seems like Bond is now more Jason Bourne than Bond, with examples like the rooftop chase and the opening car chase, it cuts between the characters so quickly it is impossible in some cases to tell who is who. They might as well re-brand some parts as 'The Bourne Series Continued' as they are so similar. There's just too much action and not enough other parts, plus as a big similarity, no one lives.

Also there is only a very thin plot which is only referred to a few times and is left unresolved at the end. In press releases before the films release, it made it sound like the water storyline in Bolivia is the main story, but it is hardly mentioned, and slips in very slightly within the continual boat chases, aeroplane chases, fights and impossible rooftop chases. Why in earth though as well are there no traditional 'Bond Women'? They used to make every film different from the last and usually advanced the plot forward, but he does not even get her at the end, he lets her go this time. As well as for a second criminal time, there is no Q or Moneypenny, essential characters, nor was the promised opening gun barrel sequence included, it was tacked on at the end.

The title sequence and song, which is what Bond films are famous for was also crap, all it did was move around the desert with some minimal CGI effects, and half the time the song is incomprehensible as it the seemingly boring music which is just a continual repeat of one short sequence and does not even sound like anything that would open a Bond film, at least Casino Royale had a proper song and sequence.

This may be a Bond film, but I don't think it deserves the honour of being one and I don't think this is actually Bond anymore, just another Jason Bourne, with just pure uninterrupted action which steadily becomes more and more boring.
4/10
Bland...James Bland
ween-312 April 2009
Disappointing. "Quantum", hot on the heels of one of the best in the Bond series, "Casino Royale", delivers more quick cuts than your average 80's hair-band video. The director doesn't let you come up for air and enjoy the ride. Dialogue and plot, never really a major drawing card for the Bond movies, gets reduced here to nothing more than an afterthought. There's not even the occasional double-entendre or gag line dropped in as a respite from the unrelenting shock and awe campaign of car chases and shoot-em-ups. Daniel Craig is better than this, as witnessed in "Casino". Call this a misstep. Craig's batting .500 as the new Bond. Let's see if a new director can get bring the series back up to snuff.

On the upside, the DVD video of Jack White and Alicia Keys doing the latest Bond song is probably more entertaining than the movie itself. In fact, Alicia looks like she's auditioning for one of those coveted Bond girl slots. Come on. Dip Alicia in some gold or oil or green toxic slime or whatever and let her show up as the latest in a string of beautiful Bond DBs .Can I get an Amen here? "Another Way To Die" can take its rightful place in the "Goldfinger" pantheon of cool Bond themes, probablysomewhere smack in the middle of "Live and Let Die" and "For Your Eyes Only".

Here's hoping the next Bond project gives Craig a shot at re-setting the bar.
4/10
Bond Goes Bourne
rjsf9630 October 2015
Whoever gave Marc Forster the gig for Quantum of Solace deserves to be shot. This is not a Bond film, it's not even a competent action picture at that. Quantum of Solace sees Bond go up against Dominic Greene. This evil, dastardly, mean, treacherous man wants to control the water supply of Bolivia!

Well he can't be that bad can he? No he is not. He is certainly below Bond though and is pathetically puny. 007 barely pushes himself against Greene because he is just a slippery little snake and hardly worth his time. So there is no decent villain for Bond. So what does Quantum of Solace offer; well let me sum it up as quickly as possible, only fitting seeing as the film is the shortest James Bond picture to date and its questionable at best if any thought at all was given to the film.

James Bond does not even bed the Bond girl by the name of Camille. Has Bond lost his touch? Look I know as well as anyone what the idea was behind this choice. To highlight how fragile and broken Bond has become since the cold killing machine he was in Casino Royale. Hey kids, this is what we refer to as symbolism! Blatant, obvious and insulting symbolism. He is heartbroken by the death of Vesper. But this is not what I want to see in a Bond film, it is dreary and sucks all the fun out of the film.

In an obvious move to make the Bond franchise more like the Jason Bourne films, the action is edited completely differently. Well that's good. No it is not. Instead of utilizing wide shots like Paul Greengrass did in The Bourne Ultimatum. Marc Forster sticks with close ups for the non-stop hurl inducing action for Quantum of Solace. We have no bearing on what is happening and what is taking place. Well why should I care anymore? Bond has become Jason Bourne. He no longer beds the leading lady and cannot even bring himself to shoot down Dominic Greene. The editing of the action scenes is also so choppy it is incomprehensible, just like the plot of the film.

Quantum of Solace forgoes the tradition of James Bond. It is devoid of a worthy villain, a sexy promiscuous woman, entertaining action, gadgets, wit, humour, levity, fun, heart and a soul. I think that is it. Marc Forster leave the Bond franchise and take with you your artistic pretensions and two dimensional characters. In James Bond the villain is supposed to be an evil megalomaniac, not the Director!
8/10
A Fine Flick
barryhartigan-124 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've just come from the Irish press screening and I must say to the various naysayers who seem to think their comments on the net hold any validity they are completely wrong, in my opinion. I'm a working journalist who has been writing about movies and the industry for over 20 years and it seems to me that there are plenty of folks who live in front of their computers and have little or no experience of what it is to enjoy a movie with a like minded crowd. (By way of qualification I have also worked in cinemas and film festivals). Put simply "Quantum of Solace" is a cracking thriller, a fine Bond film and an overall damn good night at the movies. The action is top class (especially the opening car chase), the acting is more than solid and the direction is especially great. The storyline makes perfect sense if you assume that this movie is the second in a trilogy where Bond will eventually uncover the mystery of Vesper Lynd's death. The screening tonight was with an audience of several hundred, from radio, press and TV and the vibe among the audience upon leaving was of a 'a very good picture'. To put it very simply, no more no less; it's no masterpiece, simply a good flick and a good night out. So there, for what it's worth a report from the ground. In this reviewer's opinion, a very enjoyable experience which will be enjoyed my millions worldwide. Finally to the various bloggers out there, all I will say is simply this, a night at the movies with a Bond flick is nothing more than that, a night at the movies. It does exactly what it says on the tin….Nuff said.
3/10
Quantum of Solace
tom-rasmussen1 January 2009
Im a huge fan of James Bond, alias 007 and have seen all movies so many times but i have to say that the last 2 movies, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is the worst ever seen. It have nothing to do about 007 and what he stands for as a secret agent. I really miss Q and Moneypenny, the secret lab and all the fancy stuff 007 get's from there, witch i find as a great point in 007 movies. Now i would say that they look like all other action movies except of and specially Quantum of Solace is really boring with lot of talk and talk, really no action at all and its just because its 007 i'll give it 3/10 otherwise i would give it 1/10 awful and tell people that its waist of time to see the movie. Really hope they go back some day and make 007 as the British agent we know him.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
More of the same only 21st century style. At least it tries hard
pfgpowell-117 October 2009
It's always difficult to know what to think about the James Bond franchise, and I must admit that after watching the late Sean Connery films, I rather lost interest. They became something of an institution here in Britain, with the TV companies showing several over Christmas and that sort of thing and a grateful nation was expected to murmur its thanks, and I believe they even did so. I have to say, they never did anything for me. The jokey puns were always a little to obvious for my taste, the 'humour' never very funny, the plots rapidly became clichéd and once you've seen one chase and a set of implausible gadgets, you've seen them all. When Daniel Craig took over the helm as 007, much was made in the Press, courtesy of the Broccoli marketing department, no doubt, how this would be a new, darker, less sexist Bond. And the women are now much more capable. They are no longer eye candy and easy sex for James. Judi Dench's M is a case in point and puts more than a little backbone into the female roles. Some claim that the new, improved Bond has somehow lost the essence, And having seen Casino Royale and now Quantum Of Solace I can see why. What with the Bourne franchise breathing down its neck, the Bond franchise was very much obliged to up its game and give the punter more of what the modern punter wants. In the process of this necessary modernisation, James has lost his sense of humour, is now 'caringly' sexist and no longer smokes - well, what with all the running, chasing, fighting and swimming, it would be suicide to do so. Gone, too, are the gadgets, or rather they are far more underplayed. The ability of MI6 to keep in touch with 007 is phenomenal - they can supply him with data, background info, oh, all sorts - this is a world where budgetary constraints are unheard of - but Bond himself, apart from his snazzy mobile, doesn't have many gadgets. But beneath it all, beneath this year's fashionable themes, attitudes and context, it's the same old 007 stories, the same old franchise, the same old highly fanciful plots and story lines, the same utter disregard for the lives of those not involved in any way with the plot, the same old unbelievable luck Bond's has - keys are always waiting for him in cars, speedboats are always available when he needs them, and in Quantum he has ready access to money, weapons and ammunition and can move about the world as easily as a virus. Lord, he even manages to hire a rather large turbo-prop plane which is sitting, rather conveniently, in the middle of the Bolivian desert. And exactly where did he get the 4x4 in the last few minutes of the Bolivian section when the hotel is incinerated (presumably with all its staff)? And when does a man with such a fine physique find the time to work out when he is obliged to chase around the world? And why does he never get jet-lagged? (Incidentally, Judi Dench's M, who introduces are rather sardonic line in humour, is also a very hands-on boss, in this film even ending up in 'Kazan', Russia, which for the head of Her Majesty's Most Secret Service is surely quite unprecedented. Quantum itself is full of huge implausibilites. Why do the conspirators all meet in the Austrian opera house, are given earpieces and hold some sort of conference. Well, only because it is a great set for a Bond set piece - for no other reason. Oh, why be so longwinded. Criticisng Bond is as pointless as detailing why it is impossible for Sante even to exist, let alone run a toy factory in the North Pole. All I'm saying is that if like most people you have a soft spot for the Bond films, Quantum as its predecessor Casino Royale, hits the spot and will give you what you crave, with the bonus that computer graphics mean even snazzier special effects. Me? Well, I was never a convert, and Quantum did nothing to change that. I'm not particularly stupid, but for much of the film I had little idea what was going on or why. Who was Mathis? How did Bond know Mathis? Why was Mathis beaten to death? Does it even matter? Well, no it doesn't. The Bond films are rather like Doctor Who: you accept them on their own terms and completely or you go and find something else to do. I'll probably watch the next one if the DVD comes my way, but I shan't be holding my breath.
8/10
Solid Bond movie with not so solid action sequences
tomrito15 November 2008
After reading many of the posts here about the movie, I did not know what to expect today when I went to see the film. Well I liked it very much and found it very entertaining. Daniel Craig is indeed a very good Bond; he brings a raw power to the role that I feel had been lost since Sean Connery. Without Q and all his gadgets, without the Bond music and without a powerful adversary that wants to take over the world, it is left to a good story, great worldwide scenery and Daniel Craig to carry the day. And on all counts, this film delivers the goods. The story was a good one and all the supporting actors did a great job of making the film seem real and exciting. It was really good to see Giancarlo Giannini, I like everything he has done.

Having said all that, what is the deal with all the Bourne rip-off action sequences? They were very aggravating and could have ruined the whole film for me, but like others have said, I just waited for them to end because there is no way of seeing what is going on anyway. What could have been a really great movie has been sabotaged by shaky cameras and choppy editing. It shows very poor judgment and we can only hope that whoever was to blame, will not have anything to do with future Bond movies.
7/10
Great Action, Fails to Live Up to CASINO ROYALE
brando64725 May 2009
I had high hopes for the twenty-second Bond film after seeing CASINO ROYALE. I loved that film and I easily rank it as my favorite Bond film so far. I wasn't disappointed in the latest installment but it definitely did not live up to my expectations. As the first official 007 sequel, the film picks up immediately after the last with Bond on the trail of the organization responsible for Vesper Lynd's death. He discovers a widespread, secret organization known as Quantum; one of it's members, Dominic Greene, is in the process of assisting with a military overthrow of the Bolivian government.

A major complaint about this film is that it's nearly ALL action. Considering that the film opens in the middle of an intense car chase and rarely lets up through the length of the movie, yeah, I'd say that's a fair statement. The first time I saw this movie, I was still a bit confused at the end about the plot. The movie doesn't really slow down enough for much plot exposition between action sequences. It took an extra viewing just for me to fully grasp what all had happened. On the plus side, the action sequences are creative and generally awesome. Most of the budget seems to have been put towards shooting locations and action.

Daniel Craig returns for his second run as 007 and I still feel he is one of the best to ever tackle the role. The writers of this film didn't give Bond as many one-liners or utilize as many of his mannerisms but Craig still came across as a fantastic Bond. Judi Dench received more screen time as M and has proved that she is a strong element in the 007 series that has been under-used in the past. Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton join the ranks of beautiful Bond women. I enjoyed Arterton and wish she'd had a larger role though Kurylenko did a fine job alongside Craig. As for the villain, I thoroughly enjoyed Mathieu Amalric as Greene. He's a soft-spoken, mousy individual with some crazy eyes and I felt he was a nice break from the usual Bond villain archetype.

The film is entertaining, it just doesn't feel like a Bond film. It's loaded with fantastic action and beautiful women but it lacks the 007 charm. The cast did a great job and the production value was there, so I feel the fault lies with lackluster writing. Although, to it's credit, the opening credits theme was one of the better ones we've had in a while. The song "Another Way to Die", a duet with Jack White and Alicia Keys, had lodged itself in my head for a good while after seeing the film.
5/10
My least favorite bond movie
dejongfloris17 August 2020
I don't think it's the worst one but it is the one i enjoy the least.

The movie is very forgettable nothing stands out about it. The editing is terrible. Non of the action is memorable, and the film is also way too convoluted. There are so many weird and boring subplots that go nowhere. So the movie ends up a boring convoluted mess.

Not even Daniel Craig can lift this movie up.

5/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Well. Tosca isn't for everyone."
classicsoncall8 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie has one of the most enigmatic titles probably, in the history of cinema. You see it, and you have to wonder to yourself, what the heck could that possibly mean? Sure, you could apply definitions to the individual words, but then you'd come up with something like an 'amount of comfort'. And playing over the opening credits is a song that for the first and only time I think, who's title didn't match the name of the movie. Seems to me the picture might have been called 'Another Way to Die' and it still would have worked, and made more sense than "Quantum of Solace". Well, I digress.

Watching all the James Bond movies pretty much in a row and in some semblance of order in which they were released, my mind is starting to turn to mush. This one goes in for a fair amount of misdirection with the characters and the story line, which is not unusual, but I hate to have to concentrate so hard to watch an action adventure flick. If anything, the plot will give you ideas about how the planet's governments work behind the scenes, trading off alliances and allegiance in the name of profit. James Bond (Daniel Craig) is pretty much left to hang out to dry in this story, his credentials pulled by M (Judi Dench), and the CIA out for his head when he runs afoul of plans to align the CIA to support a Bolivian coup. And all the while you would think it's for both the good guys and bad guys to get their hands on a vast new supply of oil, but the principal villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) intends to corner the South American market on wait, what? - water! I think this could have been thought through a little better than it was.

One thing about Daniel Craig - I think it would help if he'd lighten up a bit and crack a smile once in a while. He's an effective Bond when it comes to the action scenes, but he doesn't come across very likeable as a person the way most of the other actors portraying Bond do. Or at least that's my impression. If anything, his personality comes across about as dry as the desert he left Dominic Greene in.
10/10
Casino Royale, Part II: 7 Out Of 10 Stars...
ChipperX18 November 2008
Daniel Craig as the titular 007 character is a force of nature. I saw Casino Royale at the theater and was so impressed by Craig's acting abilities and the high production value of the movie that I recommended 'Casino' to all of my friends. Craig brings vitality, depth and deadly menace to Britain's most successful commercial export. Despite the actor's blond locks, he is among the best to ever portray Bond on the big screen. I eagerly anticipated Craig's second attempt.

Unfortunately, Quantum Of Solace is not as successful as 'Casino'. Ian Fleming's 007 relies upon several factors for its success: Action, intrigue, location, paunch, wit, and wry delivery of sexually charged dialog. Unfortunately, we are given action, but little else in 'Quantum'. Editing is choppy, and the pace of the movie seems rushed. Action is filmed using a quick-take camera technique, reducing the movie's visual clarity (vis-a-vis 'The Bourne Supremacy') -- some action scenes are also quite dark, and difficult for the eye to follow. The plot of the movie also raises more questions than the story arc and finale are able to answer -- and the nearly non-existent epilogue does nothing to remedy the situation.

'Quantum' is a GOOD movie, but by no means great. Although I enjoyed the movie, and will no doubt be seeing it again on the big screen, it did not quite raise itself to the high expectations set by 'Casino'. The movie was not particularly innovative, and resorted to pyrotechnics and other big-bang gimmicks rather than offer a fresh take on the action sequences. I doubt that this gaffe can be laid at the feet of the actors and actresses, who all performed well. It seems as though the editing of the film pushes it along at such a pace that 'Quantum' is nearly finished before your brain begins to puzzle together its pieces.

What was good about 'Quantum'? The action scenes, although frenetically paced, are gut-wrenching and mostly exciting. Dame Judi Dench as M is pragmatic and believable -- even lovable as a steadfast supporter of her rogue agent, 007. Daniel Craig's performance is fantastic, once again. Although there are frightfully few love scenes in this movie, Craig's Bond is hell-bent on revenge, and he delivers with ruthless efficiency. Problematic though this film may be, it is still quintessential James Bond fare, and not to be missed by the true believer.

  • Chipper F. Xavier, Esq.
3/10
I fell asleep, that never happens.
thescribecn1 September 2009
Casino Royale was a brilliant reinvention. This film was a disaster of epic proportions. Craig meanders through the Bond role with little to no charisma this time around, M is criminally under-used and the girl is dull and barely attractive. The action sequences are too loud and too noisy and too ****ing much! There's no story here, just what was left over from the quality film this mess follows and there's absolutely no emotional investment in what's happening.

I feel asleep during the airplane sequence because it was so utterly boring.

Remind me why Brosnan was let go again?
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Seriously Underrated!
John_Chewy3 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't understand what everyone's beef is with this movie?? They say that it's the worst of the Daniel Craig entries. I disagree... I would say Spectre is. Solace is action packed from start to finish. Car chases, boat chases, plane battles, surprise knife fights, shootouts, explosions... What else do you want from a Bond movie!? My favorite part though is that Bond is in pissed off no bullshit mode the whole time. He doesn't give a F about checking in with M (The most annoying character in the series). The visuals are beautiful. The one thing that I didn't like was the villain, Greene. At no time did he pose a real threat to Bond. Even their "end fight" was laughable (as they were fighting I actually thought, "this is the guy they want me to think is going to take Bond out..."?). Then again, maybe that's why Bond didn't actually kill him and let him die on his own in the desert. Other than that, I would say this a must see for any Bond fan. I think Quantum got overshadowed by The Dark Knight and Iron Man that year. In the annals of Bond movie history Solace is still in the top 5 at the end of the day.
Not bad but not great
Shadowman8212 March 2009
The latest Bond entry is something of a mixed bag . While Daniel Craig continues to impress with his gritty performance of Bond and the exchanges between Bond and M are first rate the movie does lack in comparison to a lot of previous Bond Films .

For one the choppy editing during the opening action sequences is annoying and gimmicky . The villain is boring and presents very little threat .

Also as far as the score by David Arnold goes while not as bad as let's say the score for Goldeneye it's pretty uninspired considering David Arnold started off so great with Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough . He seems to however get worse with each movie . Maybe they should get John Barry to come out of retirement .

Overall not the greatest film .
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig Bond is getting better
ebiros224 July 2011
Daniel Craig is getting more Bond like in this second installment of his 007 series. He handles physical action lot better than any of his recent predecessors.

There're twice the amount of story in this movie compared to other movies of similar length. This keeps the story loaded with action, and Daniel Craig has the goods to deliver them. The characters that appears in the movie are more interesting, and 007 like than most of 007 movies that were made in the last 25 years. If the bad guys were bit more suave, the movie would have been even better, but there's a shortage of good actors who can carry a role of this type.

There are lot less play between Bond and his women compared to Albert Broccoli days of Bond. But I don't want to see any more of combat battalion type woman to be Bond's side kick as it was in the days of Brosnan Bond, but that's just my opinion. I guess there're shortage of suitable talent in this area as well.

If this is the direction Bond movies are going in the future, I'm interested in seeing more of it. I'm looking forward to the next installment to see the evolution of Daniel Craig Bond.
7/10
Inferior to Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond, but still superior to some of the previous ones, especially Pierce Brosnan's last
Beta_Gallinger12 December 2008
After watching all 21 previous official James Bond movies on DVD, I have finally seen Bond on the silver screen for the first time! The first twenty films in the franchise seem to show Bond's continuous adventures as Agent 007, whereas the 2006 film, "Casino Royale", the first one starring Daniel Craig, shows Bond starting out as a 00 agent, so "Quantum of Solace" is a sequel to that hit film. Since Craig's first outing as Bond turned out to be so excellent, I'm sure this second one of his was highly anticipated by viewers, and I'm sure many have been disappointed. Knowing that the general reception indicated that it was inferior to the 2006 film, I had lower expectations, but was hoping it would at least turn out to be a reasonable follow-up, and it did.

James Bond has captured an enemy, a terrorist named Mr. White, and is now driving with White locked in the trunk of the car, as the British agent is chased by henchmen who are attempting to get their kidnapped boss back! He evades these henchmen, and gets away with Mr. White, who is then questioned by Bond and M, and it turns out that the organization which blackmailed Vesper Lynd will be harder to bring down than they originally thought! Evidence links an MI6 traitor to a Haiti bank, so Haiti is where Bond goes, and is where he first meets Camille Montes, who leads him to Dominic Greene, the chairman of an environmental organization known as Greene Planet. This man happens to be part of the criminal organization known as Quantum, and as Agent 007 travels to different places in the world during his investigation, Greene plans to gain control over the planet's natural resources!

Since this 22nd official Bond film from EON Productions has now been playing in theatres for a while, many people saw it before I did, so I know others have mentioned this already, but the camera work certainly could have been better (I knew about this criticism before I went to see the film). There are times when it gets a tad hard on the eyes, especially early in the film, I would say, with the shaky camera and rapidly changing scenes. For instance, a chase scene early on, one which certainly can't compete with the Madagascar chase in "Casino Royale". So, for this, "Quantum of Solace" definitely loses some points, but earns some points for other aspects of the film. You can be sure there is some action, such as a boat chase, and other memorable and often exciting moments, such as Bond and Camille trapped in a cave, and M expressing her concern about Bond's actions. Daniel Craig is once again in great form.

This second Bond film starring Daniel Craig is more polarizing than his first, despite how well it has done at the box office, and now that I've seen them both, this does not surprise me, but nonetheless, while this one isn't as consistent as "Casino Royale", I still left the theatre satisfied, which I probably wouldn't have six years ago if I had gone to see Pierce Brosnan's last Bond film, "Die Another Day", the worst in the franchise (or maybe I would have, since my tastes have changed a bit since then)! Watching this on the big screen was a little different from watching a Bond film on the small screen, so I don't think I can fully explain exactly how different or similar they are, but this one seemed to be a bit more of a mindless action flick than the 2006 blockbuster. Still, whatever the differences between the two films are, and despite the flaws that make this second one inferior, it was still a decent movie-going experience for me, and hasn't put me off going to see the next Bond film in the theatre.
1/10
Just plain awful
greggk462 April 2009
The movie starts out with a pretty good chase scene. But before we have a chance to figure out what the plot is, we have two or three more chases. For what we cannot determine. from there the scenes move around the world, but its very hard to know what Bond is after. This movie reminded me of a batman movie in 1997 that I walked out of after 15 minutes. Crazy loud action with no purpose. There seems to be two bad guys, but their roles are unclear. Something about water, but what? The scenes go on without any sense of sequence. The good thing is there are two good "Bond Babes" and he, keeping with the Bond tradition, does seduce one of them. But while he saves the main "babe", that's all he does. Very un-Bondlike. Speaking of Bond, he's the worst, and that includes David Niven. He has no class and is not special. Very weak. Judy Dench was the only redeeming feature of this agonizing movie - she was fabulous, as usual. This will be my last Bond movie until they get a new actor, a new writer, and new director. Oh, and an understandable plot would be nice.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Time to Mourn
jjhoops730 November 2020
There is an enigmatic quality to Quantum of Solace. This iteration of Bond is rather elusive. I've probably seen 'Quantum' half dozen times now, and each time I am hard pressed to recall exactly what it was about, or what happened. Ordinarily I'd consider that a horrible sign. Yet I keep coming back to watch it. And for the most part I enjoy it. Maybe this is because Quantum operates in a haze. The film unfolds in the midst of Bond's grief and desire for vengeance following the events of Casino Royale (the tightest and best Bond film). As such, loose ends must be tied off, and Bond feels himself fated to a singular pursuit of vengeance, despite the consequences, despite the worthiness of that cause. Quantum is caught between a reckoning with the past and a desire to move Bond's story forward. The filmmakers wrestle with it, as does 007. The result is a messy, exciting, gorgeous, emotionally stunted, cryptic, weirdly tangential blockbuster. The movement of the story mimics Bond's single-mindedness. He operates with brutal efficiency, a recklessness born from anger and grief. The film drives home the point that Bond's own actions tend to bring about the destruction of those closest to him. Still, in his unwavering loyalty to M and country we catch a glimpse of goodness wrestling to the surface of a tormented soul. Quantum stays true to its opening chase sequence. It hits the gas early and rarely gives you a moment to stop and take a breath. The action is original and well-choreographed, and the scenery is vibrant and dripping with lavish detail. Olga Kurylenko captivates, and Judi Dench brings us home. Quantum is a flawed movie, but I keep coming back to it. Each time, I find a new nugget to chew on: some action sequence to appreciate, some line of veiled dialogue clarified, some subtle motivation understood. And at the very least, there are beautiful cars, beautiful scenery, and beautiful people to appreciate. It's hardly an excellent movie. Casino Royale that precedes and 'Skyfall' that follows are surely better. Then 'Quantum' may be viewed as a necessary stopgap in 007's story. It gives us a bit of closure to one chapter, and a tantalizing glimpse of the next, but is necessarily compromised and has trouble existing rightly on it's own merits.
6/10
almost satisfactory
antoniotierno26 November 2008
The starting point may really seem nonsense - with Mr White, killer of Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royal", escaping from captivity in a prison/dungeon located right in Siena and Bond chasing him during the Palio horse race. Then the film gets better in spite of an opening gambit really excessive and seeming truly unnecessary. But this ultra-modern version of 007 saga, more and more modern, more violent and "physical" than usually, gets eventually to make sense. The plot is of course unrealistic, as usual, and much more than in the old films; it's also true that at a point the action sequences look like a big commercial of several brands but on the whole I would say that the story somehow works and, though lacking in credibility, manages to catch the viewer so that many moments are enjoyable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Badly shot, poorly edited rubbish.
chas_newport7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Casino Royale this is a real disappointment. Lot's of jerky filming and weird points of view. A slimy but otherwise underwhelming villain.

You can get a better effect by climbing into your own tumble drier then watching any car chase from Ronin, the boat chase from Live and Let Die, the roof chase from Bourne Ultimatum, the free-fall sequence from Point Break and the end of Backdraught.

This peculiar penchant for wobbling the camera around first came to my attention in Gladiator - it's as if the Steadycam had never been invented. At least QoS is free of extreme close-ups of people's ears.

Then again maybe I need to start sitting further back at the cinema :-)
7/10
Great action scenes but horrible underlying plot
tiggcool30 November 2008
From start to finish this move delivers on action. You can also rest assured the globe trotting that many have come to love from Bond is in full force.

However, as the plot unfolded and it was gradually revealed that the alleged diabolical businessmen was -- drum-roll please-- a multinational corporate businessman who wanted to gain control of a third world countries water supply so that he could create a water utility, and get this - charge twice the normal rate. The horror! Past that the plot is in general confusing and not that cohesive and in the end leaves a lot to be desired.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fun but emotionally uninvolving
alainenglish4 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Quantam of Solace" is a direct sequel to "Casino Royale", and continues the portrayal of superspy James Bond as a deadly, psychotic agent who lives in a threatening and dangerous world.

A car chase is the pre-credits sequence where Bond (Daniel Craig) takes the captured Mr White (Jesper Christensen) to be interrogated about his mysterious organisation. Bond is keen to do his duty and avenge the death of his one true love Vesper, who died at the end of the last film. Bond's mission takes him to Austria, Italy and eventually Bolivia and into conflict with a sinister environmentalist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric), who wants control of the world's water supply...

The film is a lot of fun and benefits from the strong performances of Craig as Bond and Judi Dench as his superior, M. Olga Kurylenko is his paramour with a deadly vendetta of her own, and she shines in a fiercely physical performance. However Gemma Arterton is a mere clothes horse as Bond's fellow agent Fields, and renowned stage actor Rory Kinnear is just a shade too young as M's aide, Tanner. Almaric is good is the main villain of the piece, though I would like to have seen more of Jesper Christensen as Mr White.

The plot is comprehensible and exciting even if the action scenes are too quickly edited and as a result too hard to follow. The usual technical feats are on display here the stunts and special effects are as usual spectacular. For a series now grounded in realism, some of the technology used by Bond and his associates is incredibly advanced. The flat-table computer consoles, for example, come straight out of "Star Trek".

Bond is definitely back on track and I look forward to seeing more of 007 in future pictures.
9/10
This film really needs to be watched a second time
gtbarker10 April 2009
When I first saw Quantum of Solace in the cinema I was disappointed, as were many others. I had even prepared myself to be let down after Craig's first outstanding outing as Bond in Casino Royale. But I still couldn't help feeling let down. What I wanted this time was a Bond right on the edge, embarking on a savage quest for revenge and I'm afraid I felt I'd been cheated. Skip forward six months and I have just seen it again and I have to say I have completely changed my mind. I now think this is a very good film and a worthy next step in the development of the raw James Bond character. Craig is again brilliant in the role and the whole film is now far more rugged and angry than I remember. Any feelings of being let down because he wasn't bent on revenge enough was clearly my own fault, for not recognising this in Craig's brilliant portrayal of a man bent on revenge, who is only prevented from going completely over the edge by his training, which along with his natural brutishness furnishes him with the ability to exact the revenge he needs before he can get on with his life. However there is still one inescapable fault with the film: it is undeniably too short and at times this leads to a feeling that we get to where we need to be a little too quickly, especially in the final third things feel a bit rushed. But all that said for me the name most definitely is Craig and I really cannot even imagine anyone else ever doing a better job.
3/10
What happened??
MikaHaeli813 May 2009
First of all - it was not a dire film. Great action as always and some good dialogue. Unfortunately, that's where it ends. Watching it was like watching a two-hour flick book - fast and confusing enough to bury any trace of a plot. A sequel to the (far superior) "Casino Royale"? Really? Should have been entitled "Bond Goes Emo". Plenty to roll your eyes at. What a waste of a cinema ticket it was. Olga Kurylenko (later seen in "Max Payne") is a calmer (albeit vengeful) presence to counterbalance the rush of the film; however, Gemma Arterton (another decent actress) is wholly wasted with an underused role. And dear god, don't let me get started on the weak theme tune (why Alicia Keys and Jack White? WHY?) Quite frankly, a very forgettable film and an embarrassment to the franchise. But like I said, not a dire film - the end credits are the best part of it.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Watch casino royale directly before you watch this
jamie-706121 March 2021
This film is amazing. The pacing of action with Well choreographed scenes have left many films speechless.amaxong acting and even sad moments if you pay attention to casino royale.but there's one issue. Its not a good bind film. I watched it the first 2 times thinking its just bad and isn't a bond film at all and what crap. But then I realised that your not meant to go into the film like its the next flick. Your supposed to watch it like its answers to questions like the godfather 2. Its a direct sequel to casino royale which no other bond film has ever done and if you watc it like that trust me you'll enjoy it much more than before. its good just look at it differently
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Poor sequel for Casino Royale
marko-erich-112 March 2009
I myself was quite pleasantly surprised with Casino Royale and Daniel Craig as James Bond, film had relatively good story, not that much action oriented, and good villain. There was even a chemistry between leading actors. Well, this is not the case for Quantum of Solace, true this film is a lot more action oriented than previous one, but some stunts are just plain ridiculous and comparable with Pearce Brosnan era, like sequence with planes.

All in all just ordinary action flick without story and characters you could connect to.

Craig lost his charm here.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not the best but still watchable
billygoonerbays-7472713 March 2021
Got nothing on all the other Daniel Craig bond movies but still watchable and to be enjoyed
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This is not Bond - its just another action movie
smarajitsen3 December 2008
This is not the Bond we have come to expect. In Casino Royale, we understood that Bond has just been given the 00 status and he was new to the game. thats why he was making so many mistakes. But the legendary wry wit was there and so were the one-liners which has become the trade mark of Bond. In Quantum, Bond is very subdued and does not take off from where he left off in Casino Royale. When we saw him in a tailored suit at the end of Casino Royale, saying - The name is Bond, James Bond --- we thought that the Bond we have come to know and love is in the making.

But sadly, in Quantum, he is just a mere shadow of his character. Craig just sleep walks through the whole movie and is very bland. The action scenes are so fast and in your face that most of the time you are confused. There is no soul to the movie and the action scenes are so well choreographed that they seem very automated.

All in all -- its just another action movie -- can't call it a Bond movie
3/10
Wake me up....
giglbox31 January 2012
Olga Kurylenko...over tanned and despite her range of language and her French stardom...just sucks. On to the movie. More drawn out, not worth following convoluted plot. I wonder if even the most hardcore Bond fan could stomach a mediocre hero and an even less than mediocre heroine. What cracks me up the most is that it draws its plot from a very real Bolivian water shortage and makes that reality into a mockery! The nerve. It's not even good writing. But, it's easy to make a movie that exploits real problems when the target audience has no idea about those problems. Just my opinion. Stop the Bond garbage. It's old. Spoiler: look out for M putting on her night cream! YIKES!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Wheres JamesBond?? (possible spoiler!!)
chrissyf081 November 2008
The reason I gave it 5/10 was that there was lots of non stop action but there was no James Bond feel about it. No gadgets, No Q, No Bond phrases and the Aston was only in 5-10 minutes at the beginning it all just didn't fit James bond and it should leave films like this to Jason Bourne and just make James Bond as we all know him. I think they did great on the action and it was absolutely brilliant on that part and Daniel Craig did amazingly in the area. The storyline for me just dragged and most of the time it seemed as if it wasn't going anywhere. When you go to see quantum of solace don't expect see a James Bond film Expect see another action film
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A bit of a let down Daniel Craig Bond film
tonypeacock-126 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a big Bond fan I was left a bit disappointed. The film does seem disjointed. However on repeat viewing it does improve.

I mean the gunbarrel sequence at the end of the film?

The plot in order to accomodate the locations is muddled and as for the title song. The background to the track is okay. Its when the lyrics and singing are added that I don't like it. A voiceless instrumental of this track would have sufficed.

Bond films are about the mad villains with their plans for worldwide domination not control of Bolivias water supply! Who cares about that? The shaky camera work is quite nauseating at times.

I missed the traditional gun barrel sequence at the beginning of the film along with a title sequence from traditional post Maurice Binder helmer Daniel Kleinman.

Recent entries have a longer running time. Marc Foster, the director goes for a shorter run time. High in action but low in substance.

Some good action sequences but a mediocre plotline make for a disjointed James Bond film.
7/10
Quantum Of Solace Good But Flawed
tburke851 June 2009
Quantum Of Solace is a good enough action film but some of the same flaws except for the running time that were in Royale are also in this one. I'll get back to that later. First off Quantum Of Solace isn't that bad of a movie it just isn't as good as Casino Royale. Daniel Craig proves once again as he did in Royale that he makes for a great Bond especially in the action/fight sequences. Craig's Bond is a man out for revenge against a shadowy international organization known as Quantum who are the ones responsible the death of his love Vesper from Casino Royale. The action sequences which can go over the top a lot are exhilarating and Craig shows he's more than capable of doing some of the stunts himself. Well done. Olga Kurylenko (from Max Payne and Hit-man) plays Bond's ally/love interest Camille and Mathieu Amalric steps into the role of the villain Dominic Green a corrupt world renowned developer. The rest of cast are solid in their small roles including Jeffrey Wright who returns as CIA Agent Felix Leiter and Judi Dench as M. They both may not be in it that much but Dench and Wright make the best of their roles. Sadly I can't say the same for Giancarlo Giannini who is a good actor but his role in this film seems to be entirely wasted. He reprises his role from Royale as fellow Agent Mathis who could've been an important character but unfortunately his screen time is cut way too short. The rest of the cast are good in their roles. One main problem in Solace that was a flaw in Royale was the presence of a real menacing villain. Amalric does what he can with the character of Dominic Green but his villain ended up being a disappointment like the one in Royale. No offense to either actors but if they do indeed make another sequel they should try creating a worthy adversary to Bond who would be a real challenge to him. Very much like The Joker was to Batman in last years blockbuster hit The Dark Knight. A true arch nemesis who isn't easily defeated and proves to be a formidable foe to the hero. Despite it's flaws with a bad ass villain and some of the action sequences. Director Marc Foster does an admirable job of bringing this movie to the big screen. If you're a fan of the Bond movies than you'll probably like this one as well.
8/10
Say what you will, I actually liked it
siderite8 December 2008
Daniel Craig is the most believable secret agent yet. In this film he doesn't even use the typical gadget car, he uses only his instinct, speed and raw, rough, morality.

So yes, there is no dark humour, almost no humour at all, it is all all action, fast and hard to fathom, but it felt more real than the convoluted scripts of past Bonds, ridiculous jokes in the face of death and unbelievably flashy villains.

Bottom line: Craig raises this movie to above the average mark I would have given it. It is not his fault that the writers are somewhat torn between the original Bond and the current expectation of the public and movie producers. It almost got close to the Bourne series in quality and it makes me want to see another installment of the 007 franchise.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A quantum short of Bourne...little solace for Bond fans
nomis-perry-11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw a pre-screening of this film and of the 5 of us, 4 actively disliked it, and 1 found it 'OK'.

Issues:

1. Pre credits sequence - really rather pedestrian.

2. Opening credits - poor. You'd think they'd get them right at least.

3. Theme tune - poor.

4. Action sequences - a sort of watered-down Bourne, despite sharing people who worked on Bourne. I think the action sequences were supposed to be bone-crunching, but they were just rather dull, with the exception of the plane sequence.

5. Craig - given very little to work with in the way of script.

6. Plot - a strong knowledge of the Casino Royale plot is a pre requisite if you are going to make any sense of this.

7. Script - just not good enough, although a few of the jokes (which are few and far between) do hit home.

8. M - is now very much an out-and-about M, popping up in the most unlikely locations.

9. Product placement - at one point the film stops for a Virgin infomercial. This sort of overt product placement totally destroys the artistic integrity of the film.

A major rethink desperately needed to get this franchise back on track. This is in the bottom 3 of Bond films along with Octopussy and late era Dalton.

Avoid.
9/10
Why did people dislike it?
Sirus_the_Virus29 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond 007 and is back with a vengeance in Quantum of Solace. And people called it the years biggest disappointment.I disagreed completely disagree. I thought that The Love Guru was the hugest disappointment.I think people weren't fond of the plot to it. Just Read this:James Bond is getting revenge for the death of his lover Vesper.He soon realizes that an organization named Quantum black mailed her over her boyfriend. The somewhat evil Domonic Greene is planning to destroy all of South America's water supply.By using dynamite. You may think it's ridiculous.I walked into the theater expecting a great follow up to one of my favorite films. The sequel is almost as good.You don't get much from the Bond girl, or too much. Though Olga Kurylenko is sexy, she doesn't have as much of a role than Eva Green did back in Casino Royale.The film has spectacular action sequences from beginning to end. I'm not just saying that. In the beginning, there's a car chase through Italy.And in the end there's a hotel explosion.The new Bond flick is awesome at many times.Though it wasn't quite as complex as Casino Royale, I still give it a ton of credit.And I hope Daniel Craig remains Bond, of course.
3/10
Great action, no story - a film unfinished and unpolished
ilja-albrecht17 November 2008
This is by far the weirdest Bond-movie I have ever seen. Why? The last Bond was brilliant in many ways. A fresh, more modern and more realistic look rejuvenating and redefining the figure of Bond to make it fitting for the 21st century. However, all the good ideas and thematic explanations woven into Casino Royale are almost entirely missing in this new installment. Quantum of Solace is one almighty roller-coaster-ride from one explosion to another fight, using the odd plane, bike, car - whatever comes along just as long as things go lightspeed. No explanatory scenes which provided for the different touch of class introduced in Casino Royale and thus no time to relax and dive into the world of this new Bond. The little information thrown at us viewers is squeezed inbetween action-sequences, delivered in hasty dialogues most difficult to follow. Especially when your ears are still ringing after the previous THX overdose. This film wanted to show the next step of the development of the character Bond - and failed by reducing it to a vendetta-rage. What's more, several highly unlogical cuts, twists and some simple but continuity-mistakes left me and my wife looking at each other in total non-comprehension. This movie is coming at you in a way an industrial drug must feel like: cold, hard, almost monochromatic and exhausting to the limit. What's left when the curtain falls is a feeling of utter frustration. Had this movie taken it's off-times in pace as Casino Royale did, it would have been another milestone. As it is, it looks like a bold try of a student which went too far and therefore failed. Sorry guys, this shot missed...
2/10
no more Daniel
tata4415 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh my god this is the worst film in bond series , bad fight scenes, bad direction, total disaster in bond series. Daniel Craig is the worst bond i have seen. please change the bond.

Bring back Pierce Brosnan .He should be back as 007.

Watch out tomorrow never dies, world is not enough ,die another day all are classics when compared to Daniel Craig's recent bond films.

I don't know how the producers select such an actor and director for bond film.

Daniel doesn't have the Bond look he is not the right person

let us hope there will be a new Bond and new team which will bring back original bond movies
3/10
This is not good!
uffeman-128 August 2009
Craig is too plain. He's acting with the same face expression through the whole movie. What we got here is one long explosion of fast cuts. Even the dialogue is cut like it was a car chase. Where is the story? It is so thin that you can see right through it right away. The action scenes are generally okay, even if the cutting pace would have benefited on being slower and the camera shots wider so the viewer could grasp everything that's happening. What's the point of cool action if you can't see what's happening?

Olga Kurylenko is a good bond chick, good looking with an exotic touch. But where's John Cleese and his gadgets.? I miss the bickering with Moneypenny and the humor. A lot of the magic is gone and Bond has just become an ordinary action guy. I can understand that the writers wanted to modernize Bond, but this is gruesome.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
bring back Pierce Brosnan
slavman1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So very disappointing.

Daniel Craig is just not bond, i don't think he can do it, they've had to change the character too much to suit him to the point that its just not bond any more.

You cant follow up casino royal (which i also didn't like) with this junk, thats two bond films now that arn't bond-like, they really needed to make this film more like an old style bond classic.

All the traditional bond stuff is missing. its just an average action flick, the fact his name is bond (he doesn't even say it!!!) and his boss is M is not enough to make it Bond.

I'm starting to think Robbie Williams might have been a better choice.

If this was film was a stand alone action film i would have rated it a 6 at the most.

The next one needs to be mind blowing or bond may never recover, such a shame.
Not the balm . . .
jdesando14 November 2008
"Till that a capable and wide revenge/Swallow them up." Othello

Revenge suits James Bond as well as anyone, largely because he's uniquely capable of carrying it through to its final solution, be it blood or blarney. Quantum of Solace spends its time racing and blasting to the exclusion of rich verbal moments that Daniel Craig is capable of delivering with the best of Brit actors. But here his lines are minimal, the effects standard with no gadgets, and the girls not as cheaply attractive as golden ones of the past.

Craig as Bond is impressive—laconic, physically fit, cocky, and emotionally invulnerable except for his loss of his love, Vesper (Eva Green), from Casino Royale. During the moments he duels with his boss, M (Judy Dench), I wanted to stay there for the whole film, dynamite, roaring cars, and fires be damned. The acting chops between those two are formidable, cheapening the leer of villain Dominic Greene too gently played by Mathieu Amalric (Munich), and the flat affect of his leading actress Olga Kurylenko as Camille. Oh, yes, when Quantum of Solace is not about revenge, it is all about fighting for the riches of the desert, and not the ones you usually think of. The cinematography is top-rate if not frenetic beyond even American taste, and the chases on land and sea and air are all of the same cloth: Bond resolves them with the same deft turn of the wheel that leads his pursuers to a wall of sorts each time.

Quantum has no gadgets, few quips, and unremarkable women; in other words it veers from the canon of light-hearted fantasies to hard-core violence and angst. As we approach the second Depression within some memories, it would be good for the producing Broccoli family to remember how the franchise has helped us forget national and global calamities by employing less psychology and more irony. This revenge business is not the balm to bring us back:

M: I thought I could trust you. You said you weren't motivated by revenge. James Bond: I am motivated by my duty. M: I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don't care who you hurt. When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go. James Bond: You don't have to worry about me.
4/10
Not a Bond Film, Not a Good Film
aledhughes18 May 2009
Casino Royale was exactly the film the Bond series was crying out for after the entertaining, yet disappointing Die Another Day. It certainly was a film that replicated the style of the Bourne series with its 'harder edge' and its darker tone. But what propelled Casino Royale to its status of being a great 007 flick was the fact it still felt like you were watching a James Bond movie. Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, does not feel like a James Bond movie and is not an enjoyable action title either.

The car chase that opens the film replicates the plot of the film perfectly. It is nigh on impossible to work out what on earth is going on and the film continues to transcend into this fashion. The film has plenty of action but contains no substance. A large proportion of these action sequences don't move the confusing storyline forward in any way. As a fan of mindless action films of the 90s this would normally prove to be an acceptable mishap but the fact of the matter is: the action sequences aren't exciting. Forster seems to be obsessed with shaking the camera and cutting to a new angle every other second. This leads to confusion as its difficult to tell the characters apart when the fists are pumping and the bullets are flying.

The other main qualm about Quantum of Solace as alluded to above, is the fact that this does not feel like James Bond anymore. Casino Royale had an absence of gadgets and omitted certain other elements as well. Bond had become colder and more brutal which was a refreshing change. Yet, the series still retained its glamour and its bond trademarks such as Bond's famous introduction, the gun-barrel sequence, the Vodka Martinis etc. All Quantum of Solace retained was the titles sequence. In Quantum, Bond is also far too cold, he has always been a womanizer with a certain amount of 'coldness' about him but the character has become overly brutal in this film. Also to mention the other characters, Dominic Greene is a very weak villain who just does not come across as the slightest bit evil. Gemma Arterton is irritating and Olga Kurylenko's character, Camille is just not particularly interesting.

This is not the worst film in the world and maybe if it wasn't dubbed as a James Bond film maybe I'd call it a decent film. However, Quantum of Solace is just a tremendous disappointment. The plot does not make any sense, the action sequences are filmed poorly and this just is not a James Bond film despite what the the title may say.

P.S. Why the hell does the film end with the gun-barrel sequence and how come Felix Leiter has suddenly become black in the last two films?
1/10
What we missed is this film?
dumbeldor20015 December 2008
Hello, I am a film addict and surely one of James Bond's film fan. When I saw this film, I was kinda shocked. If it wasn't for M, few times talk about "James BOND" and a view of "Universal export" identification card, one could say it was more one of JET LEE type of films, or TERMINATOR (James bond breaks door handle by one hand.) We missed "Money-Penny", Q, James Bond's gadgets, famous statement "my name is bond, James bond", beautiful and sexy females, James Bond class of action, famous James Bond background music. Besides, during the film, even in a simple conversation between James bond and hotel receptionist, there a lots of change in camera angle each lasts for 1 or 2 seconds, mostly closeups, confusing us to see a clear view of the scene. Where it is going? ( I mean 007 series ) is it going to be a 2nd or 3rd hand action film? Where is our charming and intelligent British spy?
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing but Still Okay
sparksimpala19 November 2008
I have heard both extremes about this movie.... that it is awesome and that it is a horrible movie.

The action sequences are all awesome but not quite as good as the action in Casino Royale. This is still a decent movie worth seeing but I wouldn't recommend paying to see it at the theater. The story is convoluted and doesn't quite come together.

In short Casino Royale is a much much better movie than this one. It will make a ton of money but the story isn't as good, the action is about equal but the characters aren't as interesting. The movie just isn't as good.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing and lazy sequel to Casino Royale
paulandsandra116 December 2008
This film was much anticipated by all James Bond fans and I think that it is fair to say that most were very disappointed. The story continues where Casino Royale finished but with a car chase where 007 attempts to get his prisoner to a 'safe house' for interrogation. This was the first inkling that all was not well. Marc Forster showed that he was out of his depth with an action film. The chase seemed badly shot and he resorted to the current trend of quick-fire editing in place of good direction. Other people have commented on the confusing plot however I think it was purely too simple with no depth to any of the characters ( strangely for a Marc Forster film ) and no chemistry between James Bond and Camille. The story stayed with the central story and peripheral characters were under-utilised. In Casino Royale we saw Daniel Craig affected both physically and emotionally by his various encounters but here he seems to have become transformed into a man of steel with no emotion ( perhaps understandable given his baptism of fire in the previous film ) and no effects from his various chases and fights. I understand that the writer's strike resulted in the script being rushed however with more character development and some action scenes where you can actually see what is happening this would have been a worthy successor to Casino Royale. The comparisons with the Bourne films are justified. Here as there we had a solid first film with good performances, character depth and engrossing action scenes. In both we seem to have a lazy formulaic sequel relying on action and hyper-active ( and incredibly frustrating ) editing. It is a great shame that the producers are risking a remarkable resurgence of the franchise with these tactics.
5/10
Quantum of Solace review from http://deusexmachinafilm.blogspot.com
joecunningham148 November 2008
It's quite easy to see where Quantum of Solace has gone wrong by comparing it directly to Casino Royale, because everything the previous film did right seems oddly lacking this time around. There's not even any real need to go into the product placement, there's much worse to rant about this time. Let us start with that name, Quantum of Solace, hardly sounds like a Bond film does it? Where the name Casino Royale gives off a suave and sophisticated vibe , Quantum of Solace comes off rather piffy and dull. And does it make any sense in context with the movie? Well in a word, no. There's one tenuous link thrown in at the end with a throwaway remark about the bad guy's organisation being called Quantum, but that's as far as it goes. By the same token then why not call the next film 'Pickle of Madness', so long as the baddies go by the name of Pickle then it will make just as much sense. They couldn't even work the name into the theme tune, speaking of which, isn't up to much cop either.

There's no doubting that Casino Royale's plot was riveting, lifted almost word-for-word from the original Ian Fleming novel it was both thrilling and involving. And by pitching an almost perfect action to character ratio every scene seemed to serve a purpose in the development of the story. So with such a strong base to build upon and written by the usually reliable Paul Haggis, why does the whole affair seem so vacuous. It's easy to fall into the trap of finding the plot confusing wondering whether you just don't get it, but before long it becomes abundantly clear that in fact there is no plot to get. The one vaguely comprehensible strand is Bond's search for revenge and the truth concerning his fallen love Vesper, this strong spine alone should have been sufficient to build a great story around but it never materialises. It is entirely possible that 007 has fallen foul of being rushed through to beat the writers strike, which if is the case is a crying shame.

With the plot not up to scratch there's a reliance on the action sequences to deliver more bang for your buck, and they do arrive thick and fast. There's a car chase (a rare aspect in which Casino Royale failed to deliver), a speedboat chase, a plane chase, a foot chase and more fights than you can shake a stick at. It's here where Forster emphatically fails to make his mark, and despite having Bourne alumni Dan Bradley in charge of the second unit, the inspiration taken from that franchise wanders too closely to poorly executed plagiarism. The gritty realism is retained but the camera moves too fast this time to see what's really happening, the first person experience is gone. There's little need to care about the men Bond were fighting, last time everyone mattered and it meant you felt every blow. The weak narrative thread makes the sequences seem pointless story-wise little more than time- fillers, their purpose for Bond often remaining unexplained.

Now admittedly Le Chiffre wasn't the best villain in Bond history but he did serve a purpose, a genuinely despicable guy who represented the evil 007 was facing even at the lowest rungs of the criminal organisation. This time Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) is the face of evil, a bigger player than anyone in Casino Royale. Unfortunately the worst thing he seems to do is raise the price of a utility bill, hardly the most villainous act you'd suspect him to be capable of. Almaric is a good actor but faced with a poorly constructed character and few memorable lines he's facing an uphill battle. Also on the weak side are the Bond girls, Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and Camille (Olga Kurylenko) may be good looking but there parts are minor, insignificant and uninteresting. The real Bond girl turns out to be Judi Dench's M in a beefed up roll, her relationship with Bond is definitely significant and possibly the only meaningful one in the movie. Dench, as it turns out, is fantastic. Her performance is almost show-stealing, M's scenes are always the ones that bring the best out in Bond.

Craig's Bond was praised on his debut as Bond - on the most part anyway - the phrase 'best Bond since Connery' was thrown around wildly (but in my opinion accurately). His arrival marked a reboot of Bond, an origin story that should see the character develop into the character we have grown to know and love. The question always was, could he sustain it? Without any shadow of a doubt he does, without him this would have been one of the weakest Bond films to date but his performance is superb and makes the piece watchable. The script doesn't help him and hands him hardly half as many one-liners as Brosnan had, but his embodiment of Connery's Bond with an earlier inexperience and edge of malice is a joy to behold. The aforementioned scenes with Judi Dench sizzle with a chemistry unrivaled by many of the best Bond girls, the lust replaced with admiration and respect. Daniel Craig is the key now to this franchise, as long as he is present no Bond film will completely flop. He is a powerful presence and a reason to keep faith that the next installment could live up to, or even improve upon, the standard he greeted us with.
7/10
Good but greatly lacking
info-163141 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the excellent Casino Royale I had very high hopes for this movie but left the cinema feeling that something was badly lacking.

Theme tune - it's a song that has grown on me but it's not a Bond song. Needs orchestration to make it powerful enough.

Opening Credits - I really liked the last sequence as it didn't have the tacky naked females of the previous Bond movies and told a great story but sadly we're back to tackiness.

Action - impossible to see what's going on in the action sequences, very frustrating. There looked like some great set pieces but nobody could make out what was happening due to poor direction and editing. Also, some scenes lacked originality.

Gadgets - I love the lack of hi-tech gadgets in the last movie and while we expect them to be technologically advanced at HQ, we don't expect them to have Minority Report screens. What next, invisible cars?

Dialogue - one of the things I loved about the last movie was the presence of intellectual dialogue between characters but this was non-existent in this movie.

The 2nd Bond Girl - the Gemma Arterton scenes existed purely so that M could tell Bond that he endangers anyone close to him. It was all so rushed and totally unnecessary that it could have been left out altogether.

Bond moments - in the last movie we were treated to small moments of accomplishment, where Bond displayed delight in what he had just achieved with a small smile. There was none of this here, the closest we got was the opera scene. In fact, the pace of the movie didn't allow for any further character development.

M - I love Dame Judi but there's only so many times M can say 'Where is he now', 'Put him through', 'Bring him in', etc. This movie got a bit repetitive.

On saying all that, I do think Daniel Craig makes an excellent Bond and would like to see more films with him in. Also, while I believe the above points are relevant for both male and female viewers, I do feel that a lot of the female viewing audience will now have been alienated judging by the reactions I saw in the cinema.

Let's have something with a little more depth to it next time!
5/10
Quantum of disappointments
KineticSeoul20 November 2012
This was a alright movie but the story is crap. The set pieces and everything from the action to the acting is well done but the story just didn't do it for this movie. There was some really high expectations for this movie since "Casino Royale" is a freaking awesome movie. There was also a expectation that this would be the contender to "The Dark Knight" well that was farthest from the truth. Unfortunately this sequel ended up being a very big disappointment and I really wanted to like this movie. Like I said some good action set pieces but even that couldn't make this a better movie. It just lacked the engaging and engrossing elements that "Casino Royale" has. Instead it seemed like it was trying to be another "Bourne" movie. What movies should never do is show a simple story in the most convoluted way possible. And that is what this movie does, when it comes down to it. The story isn't great and is simple, but they tried to make it seem more intelligent than it really is. Which is it's main downfall and if the action was better integrated into the story the action sequences would have had more of an impact.

5.5/10
9/10
Bond vs The Editing
lareval21 August 2021
This is not a bad movie at all. I think after 'Casino Royale' the hype made it look even weaker, but it´s a grower of a movie. The worst part, by far, is the editing. But if you can look beyond it, there´s a great Craig performance in here, an emotional story hidden behind the stunts and a storyline that satisfyed me. A great, underrated Bond entry. Not perfect, but truly potent.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A follow-up that almost (but not quite) lives up to Casino Royale.
lewiskendell5 March 2010
I think Quantum of Solace is a good (but not perfect) follow-up to Casino Royale, and an example of what the new Bond films in the coming years will be like. It's a lean, stream- lined action flick with a British-spy glaze. It does not have all the intricacy of Casino Royale, but it won't be easy for any other film to match the significance of Bond's first mission as a 00.

In QoS, Bond continues down the path that he was set on during the previous movie. He's still fairly unpolished, and the grief of Vesper's death consumes him. The plot is simple, but entertaining. The stunt work and action scenes are the highlight of the film. They are brutal, visceral, and very "Bourne-like".

My main issue with Quantum is that because it's basically a side-story to Casino Royale, the plot does not really hold up as well as that of the previous movie. The villain (and his scheme) isn't very compelling. It's all a bit convoluted and occasionally hard to follow, but I ended up enjoying it more the second time I watched it.

Now that the two-part origin is done, it will be interesting to see where they take the "Quantum" angle. Does the idea of a secret, shadowy criminal organization for our hero to fight, fit well into the new Bond universe? I hope so, and I look forward to Bond 23.
5/10
Very disappointing
irnchriz-11 November 2008
Well, I was looking forward to QoS the continuation of the story from Casino Royale but was sorely disappointed. There is simply NO story to this movie which is basically set piece after set piece of action scenes punctuated by some dialogue which does nothing to explain anything about what is going on leaving the viewer stunned, puzzled and feeling empty by the end of the movie.

The only thing I can think is that they were trying to play the story from Bond's point of view and because of this there is little back story or character development whatsoever.

Daniel Craig performed flawlessly with what he had been given and I hope that the 3rd part makes up for this poor effort.
23 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Bond movie without gadgets!?!?!?
mmarion-318 December 2008
This Bond movie may be filled with action, but it's not the Bond we are use to. The villain is a weak, witty man with no unique characteristics or abilities. The villains main henchman is a dude with a ridiculous hair cut who does nothing but trips down a set or stairs and gets blown up. I thought there was gonna be something special about the henchman the whole time, but no. It's a Bond movie....where are the gadgets?? It's what Bond has been about from the beginning. Nobody to step up to Q's position? Lose the gadgets, lose James Bond. When people go to a Bond movie, they expect to be entertained and forced to say "no way could that ever happen". they don't expect to see what a real-life Bond would do. I regretted the 8 bucks i spent on this one.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond, James---OOPS bad attempt to rip off Bourne
galahad58-125 March 2009
Quantum of Solace is another bit of evidence that the James Bond series should have been put to rest after Goldfinger. This extremely long suffering series of movies is just one repeat after another. Once more we have to start the movie with the idiotic silhouettes of naked women dancing while an extremely pitiful song is sung in the background.

The movie starts out with a long car chase scene, followed by about 2 minutes of story and dialog, followed by a long drawn out fight/chase scene, then another short storyline/dialog scene, followed by a long boat chase---etc, etc. There is about 15 total minutes of storyline surrounded by lengthy chase scenes. Nothing is new or original in this movie. Daniel Craig looks like he is just a lifeless person and does nothing to further any type of characterization. The story is so weak that it had to be supplemented with an extreme amount of action scenes (and not very good ones to talk about) and when the movie ends you sit there thinking "that is it?". The editing is pitiful and it feels like a great many important dialog scenes were left out that would have made the ending more conclusive.

This movie is not the worse of the Bond films, but it is not a good film. The one scene that really makes you notice there is nothing original and that the screenwriters are clueless is when they perfectly lay a female victim out exactly like the young lady in Goldfinger---the only difference is that she is covered in oil rather than gold.

Bourne is what secret agent movies should be---Bond tries to rip some of that magic off, but it is a poor attempt to replicate Bourne. Bond is a horrible example of a secret agent and it is time to put this awful series to rest.
6/10
if you like action I guess, entertaining but the story not much there
Kieran_Oneill12 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh look Vespers story makes sense her boyfriend's died... one line later, he's alive?!? so now Vesper is an idiot for falling in love with a bad guy, great storytelling guys, we may have made Vesper look like a moron but who cares, in truth this was dumb, and for them to just put a 30-second scene at the end of the movie for this, just bad all around, moving on a lot more of the action in this movie has tension and feels like it's doing something for the plot compared to Casino Royale, two different knit picks when they fell out of the plane into that sinkhole and pulled the shoot at the last second there's no way they wouldn't have died and at the beginning of the movie in the torture scene with Mr. White I don't know why he would Telegraph his agents move like that just there for dramatic effect I guess, if you like action movies you'll probably like it But Myself, I'm not a fan of action movies that don't have a really good plot behind them
3/10
This ain't James Bond anymore...
bluenine-216 November 2008
There are loads of comments on the movie, so let me not go there. Its a good movie, worth a watch.

What I wanted to comment about is the brand James Bond, and what those movies stood for. There have been good James Bond's and there have been poor ones. Sean Connery was easily the best of them, and IMO Dalton the worst I have seen. But some things remained consistent, and that was the character, and what the style of the movie. I always saw every James Bond film released in my lifetime (and quite a few before my lifetime. Its always been a easy decision. A James Bond film gets released, I go and watch it. Always. Coz it represented a type of film and entertainment (even tho it was a bit repetitive) that I enjoyed every few years. A kind of a release. Shut your brains out, enjoy the action, the style, the gadgets, and the corny lines.

And now they have gone and changed it all. Not that they are making bad movies, CR was a very good movie and QoS is decent. But its not James Bond!!! Its a completely different character, who is much more real and serious. Sure, even the acting is better. But thats not why I watched James Bond films!! I don't want to see a James Bond who falls in love and crys over his girl (CR).... and now (QoS) he didn't even sleep with the bond girl... what next, he will start cross-dressing?? While these movies may be more appealing to the broader public (specially women), they are killing what James Bond films stood for... and hence losing the faithful audience that went to watch these films without waiting for reviews.

Please bring back the original character... please make these films with more style and less emotion. Else we will start waiting for reviews before we see the films, like I do with any other action/spy film... coz this ain't James Bond anymore.
7/10
Pretty good action film, indecent bond movie
thomas-bengtsson1 November 2008
Basically this is a well made action film not worthy of being in the line of 007 films. It's enjoyable, you get your moneys worth and it's certainly entertaining. But Quantum of Solace has a total lack of finesse, which of course is a major flaw in a Bond movie. Instead of being an agent disguised as a bon vivant (or the other way around, if you so please), the Bond in this movie is entirely driven by cold blooded revenge.

Further on, the beginning is a chaotic car chase, with bad camera shots, and the rest of the first half goes on like that. The second half is pretty decent with one line that sort of resembles a typical Bond phrase, but Craig delivers it badly. I am disappointed.

But not all is bad, some scenes are excellent (keep an eye out for the Opera scene) and the action scenes with better camera shots are none at all disappointing. There are no gadgets nor Q, but there is a glass table and wall that MI6 has that works as a giant touch-screen computer. Also the general gadgets shown in the movie are the ones you can expect in a more cold Bond. Anyway, it's a good movie worth for buying tickets to but it's also a Bond movie lacking finesse, elegance and smartass lines.
6/10
Terrible Editing, Enjoyable enough but NOT Bond *** out of *****
Welshfilmfan24 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'd Like to start by saying, I'm a huge Bond Fan, I have every single Bond Movie on DVD even The unofficial Number 'Never Say Never Again' starring the Well past it by then Sean Connery, I have a fondness for every one even the Lazenby Starrer 'On her Majesty's Secret Service' but 'Quantum of Solace' based upon a short story of which this has nothing to do with, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed.

Once I saw it at the Cinema, within an hour I'd forgotten what is was about, Don't get me wrong the FX were amazing, but that's all this movie was - there wasn't really a coherent plot, (about some Enviromentalist intending to take over Bolivia's water supply, or something, I don't really remember) and despite 'QOS' being by far the shortest Bond Film of all time as it clocks in at barely over 90 Minutes, by the end I was incredibly Bored. It was reminisent of various Jason Statham Flicks such as The Transporter Trilogy, which incidentally I enjoyed far more than this, and also Bond is never really felt to be in Danger or indeed hurt (he falls through a glass celling and walks away unscathed)This and it's predecessor 'Casino Royale' were obviously meant to compete with The Bourne Series and the aforementioned Statham Films, but even they I feel had a much better Script.

The editing is poor...Very Poor, and much of the time it's impossible to see what is actually going on, especially in the opening sequence.

I don't hate this film...For a Action flick, made for people with short attention spans, it's not bad and quite enjoyable, but for a Bond Film, This is decidedly below par.

*** out of *****
7/10
Just bond movie
cckopi18 November 2021
This movie is not bad. But not a very good movie. The action was more exciting than the Casino Royale. Especially, the action in the early and middle is very worth seeing. So in the beginning, the immersion was really good, but as it goes on, I didn't know what it was about and there were parts that I didn't understand. I have an unsatisfied feeling. The running time was a bit short, so I think it would have been better if they focused more on the story.

I don't regret seeing it though.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lacks The Secret Ingredient That Made Its Predecessor An Instant Classic
CinemaClown9 December 2014
It's actually funny how the rebooted series that began on such an astonishingly high note comes crashing down all the way in this second chapter as Quantum of Solace fails to accomplish everything a sequel is usually supposed to and is a massive downgrade in comparison to its predecessor with only compensation coming from Daniel Craig's brilliant performance as James Bond.

Serving as a direct sequel to Casino Royale & picking up the story right where it was left off in the last chapter, Quantum of Solace continues Bond's quest for revenge against those responsible for Vesper's death & is assisted by another agent looking for retribution against the people who killed her family but their trail eventually leads them to a member of Quantum organisation in Bolivia.

Directed by Marc Forster, the film opens with an amazing action sequence but after that, it only goes downstream. With the previous chapter stripping the series bare by getting rid of all the eye-candy gadgets & distracting elements to rely solely on its story & characters, the sequel suffers from this because these two basic aspects aren't properly handled this time.

The plot is narrated in a hurried manner despite having moments that require it to slow down a bit, almost none of its supporting characters are interesting including the new Bond girls, Daniel Craig continues to assure that he's the right guy to take over this role, the plot tries to revel in its violence but without a good enough story to fall back upon, it doesn't contribute much to the overall experience.

On an overall scale, Quantum of Solace turns out to be an accidental misstep that doesn't really hurt the franchise in any major way & has few interesting things going in its favour but after such a brilliant start provided by Casino Royale, this tumble was least expected. Not the Bond film I was looking forward to, Quantum of Solace misses out on the secret ingredient that made its predecessor an instant classic.
3/10
A great movie sabotaged by the director
slepor30 November 2008
The actors, acting, and storyline gave promise to a five-star movie, but the director single handedly drove this movie into the ground with his inability to direct an action movie. The action sequences where nothing but less than one second clips of probably great stunts and action that were meshed together in a nauseating glimpse of a first grader making his first attempt at an action film. How disappointing when you are given actors and a storyline that are driven to nothing but an explosive theatrical performance. Now throw in an inexperienced director that is given full reign of interpretation, and you now have a great movie that is single handedly brought to it's knees. Very disappointed.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bring back the old Bond
thendric-328 March 2009
Why do movie makers now days seem to think that movies have to be dark and depressing in order to be considered "artistic". It's as though they make movies to impress other movie makers instead entertaining the public.

Although this movie was entertaining for its action, it really misses the boat on substance. HEY Hollywood!!! we don't need gore, violence and depression to entertain us. Throw a little humor and character in there once and a while to keep us from slitting our wrists on the way out of the movie theater. Take a lesson from the movie True Lies, which had a perfect combination of characters, action, humor and wanton destruction.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Best to worst in 24 months
anthony-samuelson177628 March 2009
Casino Royale was one of the best (and my favorite) Bond movies of all time. It was more gritty and realistic than most of the previous Bond films. The Daniel Craig Bond seemed more human, slightly flawed, but had a toughness and cleverness that made him believable as a super spy.

In Quantum of Solace he seems to have lost all his skills, talents and intelligence. He wanders from one scene to the next glumly commenting on insignificant details and seems to be deliberately ignoring something the audience never really sees. I told myself that Bond was just thinking about his inner demons, but the Bond in this movie never seems deep enough to have demons… or feelings… or thoughts. I now suspect Bond was just trying to ignore the weak plot. A super villain group MI-6 has never heard of? Good heavens! Lets panic! There's none of the clever quick-thinking saves or outsmarting of the bad guys we saw in the last movie. Bond never really does anything impressive at all. He just shows up and waits for things to happen around him.

Don't let me mislead you. There's a good bit of action. I have to say the balance between action and drama is close to perfect. But the execution of the action scenes is terrible. They're all shaky-camera MTV-style quick cuts that don't flow at all. And Bond never seems to have any impact on the outcome of the scenes. He doesn't think his way out. He doesn't fight his way out. He just sort of waits it out.

Not only are the action scenes awkward, but this film makes Americans look horrible. At least every white American. The only American in this film that's not a complete dirt-bag is of Arabic decent - but of course he ignores his conscience eventually… presumably because he's American.

I'm not sure if the fact that this was the first Bond film not to be directed by someone from the Commonwealth had any thing to do with it's treatment of Americans. Whatever the cause, I wish they'd gotten someone else.

Casino Royale was destined to be a tough act to follow. But my disappointment in this film goes way beyond what you should reasonably expect from a sequel. Even a 22nd sequel.
6/10
The Americans are gonna be none too pleased.
lastliberal4 July 2009
Not only the Americans, but James Bond purists will be unhappy at an effort to create another action hero like Jason Bourne. This is not the James Bond we grew up with, but a caricature that spends most of his time in polo shirts instead of tuxedos. He really has nothing of substance to say throughout the film; he just bashes one head after another. The Governator does a better job of that, as evidenced in Commando.

Some will certainly note the distinctive Anti-American theme running through the film, but that is not a bother since it's the government that is criticized, and rightly so for it's support of right-wing dictators when it suits them.

As an action film, it was exciting and worth watching. I just expect something more sophisticated from Bond, and Olga Kurylenko was really wasted.

The opening song was the worst Bond song ever. No class.
1/10
Your average action movie
hirohito-310 November 2008
I wait for so long to see how New Bond go hunting but this movie is nothing to see. From first to last scene. To be honest QoS have excellent casting and all heroes and villains are convincing. Miss Kurylenko have exotic look and so on but what the hell this film about? Montage is the pain in the eye from first cadre - when Casino Royale is eye-candy, QoS is just boring experimental work in this case. Fight scenes, pursuits - all this partials of action movie just the mess and lack of any atmosphere. I'm not say about Bondesque atmosphere but just action - you are not in the movie at all. You just sitting in your chair and think about boring endless MTV clip or something and waits for the end. Save money, save your impressions of Casino Royale and buy this QoS on DVD only for respect to Daniel Craig and casting crew.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Quantum's good enough and unique to watch
Sharkey3608 November 2008
After two years of waiting, I finally watched Quantum of Solace expecting another unforgettable adventure as well as another great 007 performance from Daniel Craig (the best Bond since Connery).

I am surprised somewhat with the way the film turned out. As the 22nd Bond film, this one takes a noticeable departure from the trends that defined the franchise. Gadgets are nowhere, no Miss Moneypenny, the James Bond theme only plays with the end credits, and no "Bond, James Bond".

Fortunately, the departure led to a unique kind of story for Bond. While past films featured the agent fighting megalomaniacs, Quantum puts Bond into the middle of big mess in the intelligence community. Not only that, Bond is struggling with the loss of Vesper, thus hurting himself emotionally. He gets suspected of taking things personally when he's supposed to do his assignments professionally. Luckily, Daniel Craig delivered a very human portrayal of Bond that few could imagine.

Quantum has lots of action and stunts, but I must admit I was bothered with the MTV-style editing (too fast and dizzying) and I was annoyed with how the action scenes mimicked the style of the recent Jason Bourne flicks. Is this Bourne or Bond?! You watch and decide! The story does have some originality in it. Let's face the fact that in the global economy, nations compete with each other for foreign investments. That aspect is pushed to the extreme in the film with Greene's scheme and deal with Bolivia. True enough, some governments out there make deals with these kinds of "investors" even if it would mean danger. The bargaining, selling and functioning of such deals each have risks to both the investor and the authority. More importantly, such deals complicate matters in the international intelligence community, and in this film it causes division between and within state intelligence. Come to think of it, the last time I saw deep intelligence politics as far as the Bond movies go was in 1963's From Russia With Love.

Overall, Quantum of Solace is a worthy sequel. It does not really try to outdo Casino Royale, but then again it does not need to. For one thing, Bond himself still has a lot to dig and dig within MI6. The Quantum organization is the 21st century's answer to SPECTRE of the past, and there is no denying that MI6 now has a real problem to watch out for. True enough, a new espionage war is brewing and Bond must do what he can for Queen and Country.

Score: 8 out of 10
1/10
Disappointing
r-subbayya8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The initial action sequence made me think this is going to be exciting. As the movie goes on the action is the usual gun-fight and explosions. The plot fails big time. Some characters come and go. There is no "Bond, James Bond", there is no cool gadgets(no secret lab where they test spy toys :P), no bond music. On the whole the movie is not satisfactory. Bond movies are supposed to be sci-fi hi-tech spy thrillers with sophisticated gadgets and a classy charming spy with his easy way with women. This has nothing to do with any of those. Maybe they wanted to create a whole new image for Bond, but it feels like that attempt also did not work out very well. And it has one of the most empty climax... the whole movie deals about an "organisation" which doesn't even come into the picture at the end. I hope the next Bond movie won't be this bad.
7/10
Doesn't live up to Casino Royale
briancham19941 June 2020
After the dramatic and tense film that was Casino Royale, this James Bond film just seemed very typical action film. There was nothing remarkable about it and it was very forgettable. There's nothing terrible about it though.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Better
BandSAboutMovies22 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marc Forster has quite the resume beyond making a Bond film, with works like Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, The Kite Runner, World War Z and Christopher Robin.

It's a film that looks back at early Bond films while making its own way, building on the loss that Bond endured at the end of Casino Royale. It's also the most violent film of the series, according to a study by the University of Otago in New Zealand.

We start directly after the end of the first film, with Bond taking Mr. White to his boss M. However, White escapes and Bond begins investigating the evil organization Quantum (or Spectre, but the filmmakers didn't have the rights). Mathieu Amalric plays the villain Dominic Greene, an eco-terrorist who acts as if he is helping the planet.

You can see this movie as really the second part of one story, setting Bond up for his future adventures and showing modern audiences who he is now.

I love how the gun barrel sequence happens at the end of the film, finally showing us that this is Bond. For not being based on an Ian Fleming story, it's nice knowing that the character seems to be in good hands.
1/10
It's time to go!
weird_al_yankovic1018 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is without doubt the worst Bond film made in history, it only rates as a mediocre action film. As Judi Dench iterates, "it's time to go!" I think they should just allow the franchise to slip quietly into the night now.

I couldn't think of much I liked about the film, so I thought I would address my loathes first.

Loathed: 1) Daniel Craig - beaten with an ugly stick in the womb, wouldn't know the meaning of charm and sophistication if it came up and slapped him in the face. Hopelessly miscast. 2) Judi Dench as M - She's lost her edge and integrity in the role. 3) M's office - what's wrong with good old fashioned walls? 4) MK12 - Opening credits were uninspiring, the gun barrel was in the wrong place and was just an embarrassment. 5) The lack of a plot or any character development. 6) Jack White and Alicia Keys vocals - harmonisation may have been good. 7) David Arnold's score - did nothing to enhance any scene, instantly forgettable. 8) Editing - camera angle zoomed too far in all the time and cutting to another before the audience had a chance to compute what was going on. Confusing and more importantly left a sense of boredom. 9) Mark Forster - couldn't direct traffic let alone a car chase. 10) Daniel Craig's gun barrel walk, he walks like a constipated turkey!

Loved: 1) Gemma Arterton and Olga Kurylenko although they were scandalously underused. 2) Dennis Gassner's production design. 3) Jack White's "Another Way to Die" even though the vocals were shocking.

If they bothered to read Casino Royale for the last film, the producers would have realised that in no way did Fleming imply that it was Bond's first mission. As a consequence, this film would not have been necessary.
8/10
The Bond Supremacy ...
brendon-kenny11 November 2008
*** This review is courtesy of Fundulgence.com - the One to watch. It also featured on BBC Radio Sheffield, Leeds and York. ***

Quantum of Solace kicks off just 20 minutes after the closing scenes of Casino Royale. This is the first direct James Bond sequel and it's clearly designed as part of a much larger canon, with plenty of scope for continuation.

Bond (Daniel Craig) must come to terms with Vesper's betrayal and expose the mysterious organisation that took her life. The organisation is more powerful and far-reaching than MI6 had ever conceived and Bond's path brings him into contact with politically corrupt environmentalist Dominick Greene (French actor Mathieu Amalric), and his fiery love interest Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Bond has a disconcerting habit of killing most of the people he meets, particularly bad guys, suspected bad guys and they're almost always potential leads. It's not long before M (Judi Dench) and the British government are condemning him for being out of control, seeking vengeance for Vesper's death.

"Immense set-pieces"

The plot may sound intricate, and it should be with three writers employed to construct a plot that's independent of Fleming's novels. When watching though, it's difficult to comprehend how such a complex web is weaved effectively when the film is so action heavy. It consists mainly of a string of immense set pieces and there's little opportunity for dialogue and plot exposition.

The action is even more Bourne inspired than Casino Royale, though this shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering the film's makers snapped up the editor and stunt team from the Bourne Trilogy early on in production. Whilst comparisons were inevitable it's astonishing to see how similar the approach is.

"…very Bourne again but hardly Christian"

There's the now familiar free-running across terracotta rooftops, the volatile hand-held cameras amidst the visceral fight scenes, and more often than not it's up close and personal too. There's a distinct lack of guns and a reliance on whatever comes to hand – knives, iron bars, axes, and other bone crunching tools of the trade. It's all very Bourne again, but hardly Christian behaviour.

Not that this influence is a bad thing. Pre-Casino Royale, Bond was much in need of a re-boot after the increasingly ridiculous gadgets (an invisible car? Come on...), an over reliance on CG effects and unbelievable silliness. Jason Bourne came out of nowhere and showed how a hardcore spy was supposed to behave. Bond's got a lot to be grateful for.

Compare the plane battle sequence from Quantum to Goldeneye (1995) and the two are worlds apart – Quantum has made the impossible plausible – this time around you'll be convinced that Bond can leap out of a nose-diving plane without the need for a parachute and walk away with just a few grazes and a soft layer of dust on his otherwise impeccable suit.

"Effortlessly cool"

As Bond, Daniel Craig exploits the character's ruthless efficiency and unpredictable reckless streak, whilst bringing his simmering intensity, to claim the role as his own. The man may well be carved from ice he's so effortlessly cool, but that would be underestimating the fact that he's clearly harder than granite.

Die-hard fans may bemoan the lack of trademark quips but there's no shortage of dry wit and smart exchanges between Bond and the supporting cast. In particular, his recurring tête-à-tête with M is a joy to behold, especially as the relationship becomes more strained. It's an easy couple of hours work for Dame Judi Dench but she's perfect for the part.

On villain duties is the smarmy Dominick Greene (French Actor Mathieu Almaric), who's foregone the need for caricatured props like the fluffy cats and golden appendages of old. Instead he opts for a starey-eyed aggression and cocksureness, with a disarmingly meek French accent. It works. He's a conceivable political player, evil but not zealously so, motivated by greed and power rather than a maniacal urge to take over the world. He's undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg within the Quantum Organisation, so he may well be small fry compared to future instalments.

Of the Bond girls, Olga Kurylenko is more than capable - she's feisty eye candy with an agenda, yet balances this with an endearing vulnerability. Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields would have been best left in St.Trinians though, she wears an Inspector Clouseau style raincoat (and little else) and speaks with a daft plumy English accent – she'd be convincing if she was playing an MI6 themed Stripper-gram, but anything else is a stretch. Thankfully she has minimal screen time.

"The title is pretentious nonsense…"

The title is pretentious nonsense but the film is at the complete antithesis. It's a lean, mean, globetrotting killing machine, offering viewers the chance to see some of the most brutally choreographed set pieces seen in a spy movie. Bond has managed to out-Bourne Bourne, and does it with the charm, intrigue and sophistication that we've come to expect from the franchise.

The chain of set pieces may be formulaic and at times unoriginal, but the execution and entertainment can't be faulted. Marc Forster's (The Kite Runner, Finding Neverland) artistic direction, the variety of distinctive worldwide locales and awe-inspiring sense of scale builds upon the foundation of its predecessor whilst creating a (Bourne) identity of its own.

Quantum of Solace trims the fat with it's stripped down running time, minimal dialogue (yet plenty of plot hooks) and places Bond back where he belongs as the Lord of the Spies.
7/10
Disappointing
jonnyk1212 November 2008
James Bond: Quantum of Solace - ***

Bond is back, and for the first time it's a sequel.

This film started out packed with action, with Daniel Craig driving his swanky looking Aston with ease, while being rammed and shot at by several cars and a truck, only for him to come out without a scratch. This basically seems to happen all throughout the film. Which is a let down.

The story is defiantly different from other James Bond films, as it's a sequel so it would be and as it leaves off from Casino Royale he's out for revenge, I think. There's not much I can say about the story to be honest, apart from the fact that it's hard to get into, this because it either to simple or it's to complicated that you miss out a lot.

Because am a boring person I sometimes listen to the audio commentary on DVDs, it was Gladiator which mentioned that a way of telling if an action film is well made is if you can follow what's actually happening in the scene, which is where Quantum of solace sadly fails.

The acting is top notch Daniel Craig does great once again on making a rugged Bond, Judi Dench does great as M, Olga Kurylenko does great as the new Bond girl (in the first film I've seen her keep her clothes on) and Mathieu Amalric also does great as the screaming Frenchman. There was a lot of hype over Gemma Arterton although she was hardly in it, that's not saying she wasn't also great.

If you compare Quantum of Solace to Casino Royale, Royale is miles better, and as this is a sequel I will take this into account. Sequels shouldn't get worse, although that seems to happen most of the time. Once again Q with all his gadgets wasn't included in this film, which was a let down as those parts where always my favourites.

To sum up Bond, James Bond (sorry) Quantum of Solace in one word that word would be disappointing. Sure it was good but it could of and should have been better.
5/10
Lacking many things I would expect from a Bond movie
alumis733 January 2010
This movie didn't have much of the qualities I have seen in the best Bond movies. For example, every good Bond move should have some charismatic villain. The guy should convince us that he is really a bad guy and that he is a match for Bond. QOS didn't have this character. What else to say? There were some attempts of dark humor, I think, but it wasn't very funny. The plot was messy with a revenge theme that didn't fit well into the story. The action scenes were okay but nothing not seen tons of times before. Despite the criticism there were some suspense, it was mediocre, but nothing much worse than that. I was disappointed because I expected more after Casino Royal.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Embarassing sequel to the best bond film in my opinion
busstwilliam21 April 2020
Terrible action God awful editing Terrible villains Awful plot (if there even is one) Nothing to like here apart from Daniel Craig who is still good in this film..
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Really struggles in certain areas but as a mystery with an element of espionage it works on a basic level, just don't expect an all round experience.
johnnyboyz21 November 2008
Quantum of Solace is a mixed bag, and it's a real, real mixed bag. On one hand, the film is a very passable and dare I say entertaining affair that just manages to be enough time without outstaying its welcome but still leaves that nasty, niggling feeling after it's finished that it was nothing special on the whole. Following on from 2006's hugely successful Casino Royale, successful because it practically saved a franchise, is Swiss director Marc Forster continuing the tale but unfortunately, he cannot bring his style and European inspired grace that gave us the slow, rewarding and powerful character driven dramas such as Monster's Ball.

The choice of director is a strange one. On IMDb, the trivia section states Bond actor Daniel Craig himself recommended Marc Forster and it seems the studio listened but since when was it a good idea for the cast to start choosing who's making the damn film? Secondly, since Quantum of Solace is the first Bond film to be a direct sequel, why was a new director chosen in the first place? Usually, the same director for the sequel or following film works better than a new creative talent all together. If the studio knew this film was going to be a direct sequel (the planning took place before Casino Royale was wrapped) then they should've made sure Campbell was on board for sure. Apply it to other works; Peter Jackson made all three Lord of the Rings films and Greengrass made the second and third Bourne films; all five examples of which have garnered a lot of fan following.

So the general set up before the film has even begun is rather messy and this is before the film has started. Quantum of Solace is two different sorts of beast. Firstly; the large espionage, driven plot about one man hunting for revenge of a loved one is actually handled reasonably well and never grates in the same way a Death Wish sequel probably would. But twinned with these scenes of tracking, following and generally interesting mystery surrounding a large criminal organisation and its shifty members are the action scenes and boy, what a mess.

I don't know what it was with either the writer's or the director but they seemed to be doing things in stages. The pre-credit sequence is a chase through Siena in Italy, one of a few places introduced via erratic and deliberately post-modern graphics and fonts that feel a bit silly. The chases in the film involve cars and later on will involve people on rooftops and later on will involve boats and later still will involve aeroplanes – it's this sort of Michael Bay inspired hierarchy that drags Quantum of Solace down; a sort of 'every chase will be bigger and better than the last!' mentality that grates on you as you sit and watch it unfolding at paced intervals of about twenty minutes.

But again, this is just the set up and the general mentality behind the chases with the visualisation of the scenes is slightly worse. In short, and I will not be the last to notice this, the editing is terrible. Constant moving, tracking, cutting and one on occasion, slow motion as the camera glides to the side yet enforces its rapid editing on show. The film's attention to space and the space that the characters inhabit is equally poor; Bond has a gun, Bond is shooting and bad guys are dropping around him like flies – it gets to the point where Bond may just as well be shooting up into the air above him and we can cut to someone below him, dropping and thus being eliminated. The establishment of where we are and where people are and how they're going to go about achieving their goal of killing each another is just nonexistent.

But I like the overall feeling the film tries to get across in the sense Bond, played well by Daniel Craig, and his accomplice Camille (Kurylenko) are both after the same thing in the film (revenge through death of a loved one) but must use one another to get closer to their goal. Incidentally, Camille is anything but the glamorous beauty who exists to be looked at, something previous Bond films have been guilty of doing to their women, although the treatment of ally Strawberry Fields (why did they send a woman to apprehend Bond in the first place?) is unfortunate and the negatives do outweigh the positives. If Casino Royale helped move the franchise away from petty references and the use of gimmicky gadgets (the invisible car was a tad over the top), then Quantum of Solace threatens to undo a lot of good work by pushing the series back down to that area. The excessive shots of the technology in the film, such as screens that seem to suspend themselves in mid air in the middle of offices or others that react to touch and evoke copious amounts of information at a fantastic rate, too fantastic even.

Then there are the Goldfinger references such as the certain character covered in oil rather than gold paint whilst lying on the bed and the bad guy's lair at the very end which, maybe it's just me, looks distinctly like the interior of Fort Knox with its coloured interior; steel walkways and general look. The film is nothing to write home about but it quenches a lot of espionage related thirsts with a healthy mix of action and dialogue, complete with betrayals and meek statements on today's political climate what with the increasing lack of oil and the shifty activities the Americans might be indulging in, some of it to do with 'friendly fire'. Quantum of Solace isn't great but it's a fun enough time that doesn't creep too low beyond the line of negativity, like it could've done.
1/10
Not a Bond
MrDeWinters15 October 2021
Lost interest within 20 minutes. Worst of Daniels Bond. Mediocre villain, mediocre story. More fights than spy, no gadgets, no fun. Just a boring action movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A solid action film, but falls on the dialog
jamster_91115 November 2008
After seeing Casino Royale I was so excited to hear about Quantum of Solace and it's production. I was hoping for another great film in the bond franchise.

Then I began to hear the reviews that were getting mixed, so i wasn't sure what to expect. This was a good thing though in my opinion because i could go into the movie with a neutral look on the movie.

Well i have to say that I was very satisfied with the action that this movie gave, but was disappointed by the fact the dialog gave me a feeling of emptiness.

I was hoping for more of a character development for Bond in this one after seeing C.R. but as M said in the movie, he is mostly fueled by rage throughout the movie about the events in Casino Royale (which I won't spoil).

The movie is more about Bond getting revenge than anything else and that is why there is so much action and why many of the other scenes fell somewhat bland.

But overall if you accept the fact that this movie is for Bond and his need for revenge, then you will enjoy the action. The movie's action will make up for the flaws for it's dialog and direction and that is why I think it is a fitting sequel for, in my opinion, the best bond film of the franchise.
1/10
What is happening?
ethanpage-8046627 January 2019
What am I watching? I don't know what it's about, I don't know whats happening I couldn't remember the beginning half way through the film and now I can't remeber the middle... now I can't remember the end? The action sequences cut every micro second, I can't tell what's happening. The biggest shock in the film was when the man fell down the stairs His toupee fell off. Even Bond seems bored! This film man...
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Incredibly underrated
rutherfordh-8199319 August 2021
Quantum Of Solace one of the most underrated Bond films there is. It has lots of action, and some great characters. The locations are also great, and add to the dark tone of the film. While it is very good, there is a lot of action and it rarely seems to stop, and the villain is not one of the strongest or scariest. Despite these, the film has some very strong point and is a great one to watch.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good, relentless action film. But still a leap back compared to Casino Royale...
Squeele31 October 2008
In a nutshell: I, for one, found Bond's latest "Quantum of Solace" quite enjoyable but with some annoying flaws. Almost non-stop action with some sarcastic bits of humor (but never to the point of making the hero look silly or ridicule himself, like a Roger Moore 007, or Downey's Iron Man more recently) and all-around good acting. On the other hand the script is weak and quite messy, uselessly convoluted for the paper-thin story it tells.

Direction-wise this is *not* a cheap Bourne rip-off as some people have claimed here and there. It truly feels like a Bond movie. The action is frenetic, filmed pretty much in the same vein as "Casino Royale", which is a good thing. Sure, there are some bold tracking shots and not-so-steady cam, but never to the point of being too shaky. It's used efficiently, not in a show-off way. A Bond movie has to be spectacular and if clearly not groundbreaking that one hits the mark.

But as far as I'm concerned, the rest wasn't as tight. The direction is somewhat repetitive (especially when establishing one of the countless new locations, when the director abuses of music and multiple cuts to amp up the exposition scenes, as if the action scenes weren't titillating enough). The story is poorly introduced and it gets worse with every new character hitting the screen. As for the usually excellent Mathieu Amalric playing the main baddie, he's given too few too late to really shine. His very last scene with Daniel Craig is really good, the fights are brutal and the guy clearly has the charisma to stand against Bond, but plot-wise he's really wasted.

Now, for the lame mistakes they cleverly avoided: no Michael Bay editing style. No - or at least very few - obnoxious product placement. No annoying or miscast Bond Girl. The movie is not shying away from the violence, with possibly one of the highest body-counts in the whole franchise. This is still the assassin Bond we're given (with another great performance from Daniel Craig), not the caricatured spy. The opening title sequence is being designed by newcomers in the Bond universe and they made a very good job, blending all the ingredients without being too flashy and that actually benefits the song from Jack White and Alicia Keys. I found said song much more enjoyable during the credits than without them - where "Casino Royale" gave me the exact opposite feeling.

Unfortunately, almost everything else was handled more firmly by Martin Campbell and the producers in 2006. Marc Forster does a decent job and took some interesting decisions regarding the tone as well as some specific scenes (without spoiling much, I'd say that his use of Puccini's "Tosca" was quite original) but sometimes too much action is detrimental, even to an action movie.

All in all, a good but flawed Bond movie whose downsides could have been easily avoided. Following "Casino Royale" was doubly harmful; not only because of its inherent quality, but also for the writers' mishandling of its legacy. If the next Bond tries again to tie some loose ends from "Quantum of Solace", I just hope they'll learn from their mistakes and give it a more coherent feel. No one wants to suffer the decreasing quality of the post-GoldenEye Bonds again, right?
6/10
Bond loses his charm
TheJags6 November 2008
Bond seems to have lost his way a little bit since Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace, despite being far from the worst instalment ever (Die Another Day still haunts most), is really rather poor overall. The plot is wafer-thin, the action overrated and the directing inappropriate.

Half of the film barely makes sense, and many of the characters feel completely one-dimensional. M has lost her "balls," Mathis doesn't really play much of a role and the Bond girl's history is such a terrible cliché that the film quickly elbows through it, almost as if embarrassed.

Fans have clung to the action as the saving grace of this piece, but at the end of the day the film has geared itself to compete with the Bourne series and has failed miserably. The camera work deserves a special mention here too, as I can only assume the man behind it was drunk most of the time.

Overall, the film isn't awful by any stretch of the imagination, but after finally witnessing Bond getting back on track with Casino Royale it's difficult not to be left feeling stunned at how far it's fallen so fast. In the end, this has left me feeling the most disappointed in a film for a long time.
4/10
We are entering a second age of bond movies....
jtamurphy1 November 2008
...they're far from golden!

Went to cinema last night with my son, after looking forward to it all week - raring to go! But to say this is a classic movie would do classic movies a complete disservice, this is a very bland movie, the sequences were wooden (I don't know if they were trying to copy Bourne - but they fell way short of it).

They spent more time trying to tie up the first movie, and failed miserably.

There was one scene where Bonds credit cards were blocked and in the next scene he was driving a motor boat? Explain?

Another scene where he was escaping an exploding complex, next scene he was driving a brand new range rover? Explain?

4 out of 10 and thats me being generous to this movie.

Daniel Craig is an average actor, he'll never be a true Bond like Connery or Moore. Danny stick to Gangster movies, you do them better, son!

John Murphy Stevenston Ayrshire
5/10
Why I was disappointed by Quantum of Solace
mcarter249 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First of all, this movie brought on one of the idiotic directors from the Bourne series as the second unit director, which means you can't see any of the action well enough to enjoy it. The action scenes are therefore mostly a waste of bruises by Daniel Craig.

Secondly, and most importantly, this movie misses 3 opportunities for great plot development. Instead of utilizing these chances to make a truly amazing movie, the story skips ahead and doesn't reveal a thing! (SPOILER ALERT) The first chance is at the beginning, when the first Quantum agent is in custody. Every bit of information he provides is shown in the trailer, which isn't much. No additional interesting tidbits about the organization itself are revealed. However, this one I could have forgiven, since it is at the start of the movie and they had a chance to tell more of the story. Alas, the filmmakers never did. A second opportunity was missed when Dominic Greene is captured by Bond, FULLY INTERROGATED, and we see none of it and are given no clues as to what Bond learned. Bond obviously got all the information he wanted, since he left Greene to die in the desert. The final missed opportunity was when Bond caught Vesper's old boyfriend, FULLY INTERROGATED him, and again we see none of it and do not learn any of the details before the movie ends.

Upon leaving the movie, I felt like I could have watched the trailer a few times in succession and learned about as much as what was in the whole movie. I certainly wouldn't have missed much plot development. That, and Olga Kurylenko cast as a Latina woman was so ridiculous that I didn't even realize she was supposed to be Latina until much later. It seemed odd to have a woman with a name like Kurylenko, who is obviously not Latina, playing that part.

The major problem with this movie is that all the most interesting moments occur off the screen, in those missing interrogation scenes. After reading about the movie later, and realizing that the studios are hoping to create a series of movies with Quantum as the super-enemy for Bond to fight, I now understand that they are saving the interesting material to string out across multiple movies. I, for one, am not interested in seeing another Bond movie if that is the case. And I love Bond movies. I've seen every one that has been released in my lifetime, and most of the ones before that. However, if the new set of movies is filled with camera-shaking fuzzy action scenes with all the most interesting dialog of the interrogations cut out, I will no longer be buying movie tickets or DVD's for subsequent Bond movies.
3/10
Great action, dumb movie
keith-77428 November 2008
I'd add spoilers, but there isn't anything to tell. This movie's entire plot could be described in detail on a single sheet of paper. There was certainly plenty of action, and lots of exotic places, but NO PLOT! There was no story to tell. The movie was obviously a stepping stone from the "what's the new evil organization?!" moment at the end of Casino Royale, but it was one small stepping stone. This movie was such a waste of time that I don't plan to ever buy it. Here's hoping that there's actually a plot in the next Bond movie, or maybe it's time to retire James and move on to the next super spy.... (*Ah... apparently I have to put in ten lines of text to satisfy IMDb's minimum comment size requirement. Are they kidding? What do they want, a book? Sheesh...)
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Garbage in all possible ways
amolckhedkar1 September 2020
Pathetic story, horrible direction. DC is as boring as ever. This was even worse than CR.

There's nothing in this movie that has been associated with the classic Bond movies. No Q, no gadgets, no Moneypenny.

This is a Bond movie in name only!

This franchise sorely needs a reboot. And a new Bond. This one is absolutely boring!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
casino royale + quantum of solace
cinemamoviecars5 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You need to see this movie as the direct sequel to casino royale, so thats why the pace is so fast, and you feel the rush and the speed of bond. Is better if u watch this movie after casino royale. Because is the second part. In this movie 007 is in the run looking for mr.white answers about vesper lynd and his connection to him. Obviously the rythm is fast and is darker than casino, and the action is shot fast and with alot of cuts. So is more for fans of action movies a la tony scott(even the opening feels that way) than for classic 007 fans. Watch it if u want to feel the rush.
7/10
The Bond Identity
robertmfreeman24 November 2008
Quantum of Solace starts off on my bad side just because of the name, which roughly translates to 'Moment of Silence'. Couldn't they just have called it that? Sure, they were using an Ian Fleming title, but it isn't based on one of his stories, especially not the original 'Quantum of Solace'.

This might be the reason the movie doesn't really feel like a James Bond film. Instead, it just feels like a Hollywood sequel, no different in spirit then Men in Black 2, and like so many sequels, it commits the cardinal sin of leaving out most of the things that made the original great. There's no subtlety, it adds virtually nothing to the ongoing plot, and there really isn't any romance. It's just Bond running around, being Jason Bourne.

Yes, you can argue that the Bourne series borrowed its theme and style originally from James Bond, but Quantum doesn't just use the style, it copies scenes directly from Bourne movies. The shaky car chase at the beginning of Quantum is directly out of the second Bourne movie, and the chase across the rooftops in the European village is shamelessly stolen directly out of the third Bourne movie, complete with our hero's detours directly through apartments. There's a difference between using similar, styles and directly stealing. Quantum crosses that line.

All that aside, it isn't a bad movie, it's just a disappointing one. Daniel Craig makes the movie worth watching by playing Bond as more vulnerable, more human, and ultimately, more impressive. There are many Bonds that can convince me that they're the greatest spy in the world, but only Daniel Craig's Bond has convinced me that he's actually willing to die for something, even if it's just to avenge the death of the woman he loves.

I also have to give credit to Mathieu Amalric for a very talented and unique performance as the villain. Instead of appearing larger than life, or ridiculously evil, he's presented to be just as human as Bond, only without Bond's morals or convictions. When first introduced, I assumed he'd be a minor villain, as he seemed a little pathetic, but watching him dance around his less savvy and political opponents proved very interesting. Instead of a mad villain with a missile pointed at London, we have a subtle, political monster, motivated only by greed, who knows exactly how to work the system. I, for one, was impressed.

All in all, Quantum of Solace isn't the best nor worst James Bond movie, but it fails to live up to Casino Royale, or even stay within the same genre. Quantum is basically a brainless action thriller with a dynamite cast, and whether or not you'll be disappointed all depends on what you expect to see. Personally, I would've preferred it if they used the exact same cast, only with a different script.
3/10
Good Bond Actor, Bad Bond Movie
super-joey21 November 2008
Let me just start by saying that Daniel Craig remains a good choice for Bond. The film-makers hit the nail on the head when they cast him 3 years ago. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a good Bond movie. How can they be so good at choosing the right actor but so bad at choosing the right story, script and director? The cinematography and editing make it impossible for us to truly appreciate the action and stunts. You find yourself squinting, hoping to make out what's going on. You WANT to enjoy the action sequences but the film-makers won't allow you to. Why do they spend millions creating an action sequence only to hide it behind bad camera-work and editing? Such a waste.

Speaking of waste: They've got this perfect Bond (Daniel Craig's impeccable portrayal) yet they have no clue how to build a movie around him. Some say it's an effort to return Bond to his roots. Okay, let's examine Bond's roots for a moment then...

The Ian Fleming novels were great. But if you are looking for a realistic presentation of what it's like to be a spy, you don't read Fleming. You read Tom Clancy! What Fleming gave us was the fantasy of what we WISH it was like to be a spy. Fast cars, beautiful women, fine dining, fun story and plotting, Etc. Those books were male oriented fantasies. (Not to say women can't enjoy them too, but they were geared primarily toward men.) There was a touch of "comic book" to the Bond novels. And the best, most classic 007 movies are the ones that understand that. QUANTUM OF SOLACE drops the fantasy elements entirely. We're left with a movie that does not transport us. We can't get lost in it the way we can when we watch THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or GOLDFINGER or FROM Russia WITH LOVE or any of the great classics of the franchise.

It's a shame too! Because I thought CASINO ROYALE was on the right track. What happened? You can be darker and grittier without trying to be Bourne or Clancy. Just look at LICENCE TO KILL and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (or CASINO ROYALE for that matter).

In summery, this movie might please the Internet fans who post on the message boards. (They get excited when Bond strays from fantasy.) But message boards do not represent a proper cross-section of what the average fan wants to see. Hopefully the producers will stop turning to the boards for ideas and get Bond back to what he does best.

(And please note: the question below asks if this review was helpful to you. It does not ask if you agree with me. So please don't click "no" just because you disagree.)
6/10
Not Your Regular Bond Title
wambosaur14 November 2008
Being a bit of a fan of James Bond films, it was a bit disappointing to see something try to 'break the mold'. Sadly, this movie doesn't do it. In your typical Bond flick, James goes after the dastardly evil villain, uses his gadgets to defeat him in some incredibly over-the-top action sequences, all while seducing the woman sidekick. It's disappointing to see that hardly any of this happens in Quantum of Solace. The villains are not worth James' time but rather the time of the local police. Gadgets are non-existent (seriously), and the Bond-Sidekick relationship ends in a "well, that was fun!" type of way. Even the action scenes had a low body-count, lack of sneaky stealth and were filmed a bit TOO close.

On the plus side, the story was pretty epic and interesting. To prevent spoilers, it was arguably better than your typical Bond story. It's definitely worth a rental or however you get your movies, just to fully understand the story.

I'm not much of a movie connoisseur but Daniel Craig's performance was pretty good; was definitely believable and suave.
Daniel Craig is Bond, harder, bloodier and faster. Perfect.
amesmonde31 October 2008
Although it lacks a catchy title name or theme tune Quantum of Solace from it's opening breath taking car chase is a fine addition to the restarted Bond franchise, all the Bonds had their quirks, Roger had his eye brow and Daniel Craig has his pout.

Gone is the shadow of Bourne, Craig had already proved himself in Casino Royale and I mention his first outing as this is a direct sequel. The excellent collaborated script lets Bond develop and grow as a character and under the direction of Marc Forster Daniel Craig portrays Bond, harder, bloodier, faster and perfectly as he seeks revenge for the death of Vesper aided by some familiar characters including M, Felix and Mathis.

St. Trinian's, RocknRolla and up and coming Prince of Persia actress Gemma Arterton shows up as Fields and mirrors an icon Bond moment, while Camille played by the lovely Olga Kurylenko is Bonds Bolivian equivalent both do the 22nd official Bond outing justice. The realistic looking action and the on location feel coupled with the subtle but compulsory music by David Arnold assists Quantum become a most memorable outing for the secret Agent.

While Quantums critics moan that this is Un-Bond it's because they hark back to the Seans heavy handed Bond or Rogers lighter gadgeted Bond, I should advise them to move on - this is more Flemings Bond but for a new age.

If Casino Royale was Craigs Dr. No, Quantum of Solace is his From Russia with Love, a classic, strong, yet underrated Bond outing. The ending relights the fuel with a final iconic shot, that for a moment you may have thought the creators missed... But Bond is Back and with a clean slate welcoming Bond 23...
1/10
Painful
Cindy-Savue-Welburn7 April 2009
This was the most painful Bond movie ever. Nothing to captivate and keep you going. I'm still wondering what the story was and what it meant. What was the point of this movie, what was the plot, the story, what was going on in their minds when they wrote this movie. I watched the whole movie hoping to get something but nothing. The voting button gives you the option between 1 to 10, I gave it a one, but it deserved a minus 100. Casino Royal was very good. At least it had something to keep you wanting to go on watching it. even if Daniel Craig is butt ugly, not the best looking Bond at all. You might want to rethink the writing skills of your group at this point and consider changing James Bond and put someone that fit the role.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Path of Revenge
ThomasDrufke5 November 2015
In between two of the greatest Bond films of all time, Quantum of Solace returns back to the formula of several Bond films except for the fact that the story line pretty much carries over from Casino Royale. This time Bond is out for revenge against the people who killed his one love, Vesper. By no means is this a great film, in fact, it's surprisingly uneventful. But I think the film gets a worse rap than it should because it's in between Casino Royale and Skyfall.

I found it crazy how much I didn't remember about this film. But I did remember how much it shares with The Living Daylights of 20 years prior. In both films Bond goes borderline Rogue from MI6 due to a loss of a loved one. The difference is The Living Daylights is far more exciting and better paced than Quantum. Solace is nearly 40 minutes shorter than the other Craig films which smells like late game editing to me. I'm not saying it would be good if it were longer but I do think we would care more about the supporting characters. I think that was my main issue with this film, it's really Craig and everyone else here. I think it's a combination of lackluster performances and writing.

Bond goes on a so called 'killing spree' throughout the film, or rather everyone that comes close to him dies as he goes after Dominic Greene, the leader of a mysterious organization set to eliminate Bolivia's water supply. A weird motivation for a Bond villain, but it's never the endgame that matters, it's the performance of the actor that really counts. With that said, I never found Mathieu Amalric's performance to all that intriguing. It's disappointing considering the incredible villains of Casino Royale and Skyfall. As I'm writing this I feel like I dislike the film increasingly more thinking about it as I gather my final thoughts. I'm trying to think of redeemable qualities especially putting it into perspective with the others in this new reboot. Perhaps the relationship between Bond and M is the best part about the film. The CGI is more noticeable and the editing with shaky cam is distracting. These films work best when they focus on story first and foremost, not the action.

+Bond & M relationship blossoms.

-No depth

-Uninteresting supporting characters

-Too short

-Weak villain

4.5/10
5/10
Almost nonstop action . . . and little else.
sak00716 November 2008
Action rules all else -- plot, dialog, character development and all the other strengths that made Casino Royale (and, for that matter, From Russia With Love over 40 years ago) so enjoyable and satisfying. After choosing Marc Forster for his great strengths in telling a story, he had almost no story to tell. Forster's substantial ability to draw the audience in emotionally (as in Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland) was totally untapped here. What could have been a great extension on building a character that we are truly emotionally invested in became an exercise in explosions, jerky motion filming, and absurd situations. Quite a disappointment.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A pretty bad Jason Bourne / Batman imitation
kingofallgermans16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond doesn't order Martinis anymore. He has no gadgets. He doesn't even have a charming smile.

What he does have is emotional darkness a la Batman (but crude and cringe-inducing) and Jason-Bourne-style editing for his action sequences (but, again, badly done).

I'm all for a "new" James Bond (really) but I'd like a James Bond who doesn't run around, out of control, dark-faced, killing everyone he's not supposed to kill (really!) in a plot that's absolutely laughable (if you can follow it).

Daniel Craig is good (see Casino Royale) - but he wasn't well directed.

This new Bond picks up his dead friend and dumps him in a garbage container, for no reason (really, don't ask me why), and - when another character complains - declares that his friend "wouldn't have minded." (I'm not lying)

While the Bourne films use shaky-camera, quick-cut action editing masterfully to add realism and detail, Quantum of Solace just chops up perfectly good action sequences until they're all but unrecognizable. You'll have a very hard time telling what's going on and it'll be more like trying to decipher someone's home-made hand-held footage than enjoying a good action movie. (Want to see some good action with added realism? Watch the Bourne movies or "Trade" with Liam Neeson - that's how it's done)

Casino Royale had maybe the greatest foot chase ever filmed, and the rest of it was not too shabby. I hoped Quantum of Solace would follow up in style. Unfortunately, it failed miserably.
5/10
Action packed, highly watchable Bond film that only JUST falls short of Casino Royale.
filmsploitation1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taken from COMBAT FILM (http://combatfilm.blogspot.com) Quantum of Solace is a spectacular, often emotionally charged Bond film that won't be to everyone's liking. It's a film of two halves that benefits greatest from the slower pace in the final hour that allows the characters time to breathe and the story time to develop. For me this film rates somewhere between Licence To Kill and Casino Royale. It's better than any that Bronsan managed but doesn't quite rise to the lofty standards set by 2006's Casino Royale.

The film suffers from a confused first thirty minutes, is over edited in places and isn't as tightly written or plotted as it should have been. It's also been criticised as too Bourne in places, which to be fair it is. But that's not a bad thing is it, considering how intense and real the action in the three Bourne films were? Finding Neverland director Marc Foster may have been an odd choice but he brings a level of style and individuality to the film that Bond has lacked in the past. This isn't the production line Bond by numbers the last few Brosnan film's become. And it's better for it for sure.

This is Bond as the ultimate killer, a trained super spy that's as hard as they come and when it comes down to it the action here IS very good – especially the opening car chase and final fight with Greene in the exploding hydrogen filled hotel (when was that ever going to be a good idea?). But action aside for the first time since the underrated On her Majesties Secret Service we get a story that gives us a more emotionally driven look at a character that has often lacked depth. It's a more contemporary and much more dangerous James Bond than we have seen in the past. Okay so the story could be stronger in places and the pacing is off at the start, when the story does settle down it allows the characters to grow and develop and is never boring.

At just under two hours it's also one of the shortest Bond films ever and moves at such a pace that you're never bored let alone allowed to dwell on the films many conveniences or confusing plot turns.

In short: Action packed, highly watchable Bond film that only JUST falls short of Casino Royale.

Film rating: 4/5 Action Rating: 3/5 If you liked this try: Casino Royale; License To Kill; Bourne Trilogy Phil Hobden Editor - Combat Film Check out the full in-depth review in next months Combat Mgazine, Out End of November from all good retailers. www.combatmag.co.uk
"Missed by that much"
insp31624 March 2009
This is a weak entry in to the bond mythology, were they went so right with Casino Royal the really missed the mark with this film. Would have loved to have seen this film under the direction of Martin Campbell( who directed Casino Royal and Goldeneye). When you get right down to it the films length is the major issue it feels rushed and would have greatly benefited with an extra half and hour. The other main fatal flaw may have been the villains, the bond franchise has been filled with so many great baddies over the years. Dominic Greene will no doubt go down as a forgettable character in Bond lore, not that his acting was not well done, there was just not that much to do with that character. I hope in the future they make more like Golden Eye, From Russia with Love and Casino Royale. Daniel Craig has my full support, i honestly chalk this one up to bad direction. 3 out of 5 for me
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Needed just a little bit of work
robertallenandersonjr14 November 2008
Quantum Of Solace could of really used some work. It had a pretty bad story line for the most part. I didn't see the casino Royale but I think the story takes place from the end of that movie It had very boring parts in this and some really entertaining parts. The actors were over-acting for a lot of the movie. Daniel Craig was the only really pretty good actor in it. Everyone was good but just didn't nail it like they could've. I think it was very far-fetched and didn't make sense a lot of the movie. It was kind of confusing. I was having a hard time staying awake at some scenes. It wasn't terrible though I just think it had a lot of potential. It had many great action sequences though. The direction wasn't really going anywhere. The visuals were nice and the movie had many great filming locations. Overall the movie needed quite some work and then would have been really good.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Paul Anderson on steroids... but I like
p-stepien4 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not all is right with this new Bond film. It has some very severe flaws and some great pluses. Fortunately the latter outdo the former. So maybe I'll list them as pros and cons:

PROS: This Bond has the right feel to him. Very much inspired by the Casino Royale restart Craig David is the best Bond since the early days of the unforgettable Sean Connery. He feels right and acts accordingly. Part gentlemen, part ruthless killer, part idealist, part cynic... Big applause for Craig.

The scripts are much better than most Bond movies, including the early ones, which one must admit were a bit fairy-tale'ish with over the top conspiracies. This time the script got it right with a believable villain and intriguing organisation, that can pull the Bond franchise into a new era (I'm actually interested in seeing the downfall of Quantum). The intriguing storyline is definitely part of the reason that Bond has once again become fashionable.

I also liked that the story doesn't insult our intelligence. Not everything is said straight up and force-fed to you like to a little baby. You have to connect the threads and use your imagination at times. There are a lot of unanswered questions, but this makes it so much more believable. Its not like in real life everything is like in most Hollywood movies with villains meticulously setting out their motives and their goals...

Worth mentioning is the great villain played by the 'despicable' Mathieu Amalric (I just loved hating his character). Best film villain I've seen for years (with the exception of the Joker).

Other pros are the great supporting cast, capable storytelling and some interesting ideas. Also losing the Bond gadgets really hits the spot. Worth mentioning is the memorable Bond song opening credits which almost put us back in time and was strongly influenced by the first Bond movies - not only the music but also the background graphics. Great.

CONS: The action... The action sequences are just terrible.

It almost feels as if Paul Anderson is back after his 'Alien vs Predator' debacle and on steroids. The car scene as well as i.e. the first chase sequence is terribly shot and editing is even worse (red cards for Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson - be ashamed... be very ashamed). I guess some people think that shaky camera-work and quick shots cause an adrenaline rush. Me and my girl almost fell to sleep. After the first chase scene I starting thinking of leaving the cinema. I stuck in the seat only because the sequence was followed by the great opening credits scene. Then unfortunately straight away we get another snooze attack chase. If you live past this the film gets better, so hold on and wait.

Thankfully action sequences were quite often, but most were short and some were even very innovative and memorable (i.e. Bond attacking the black guy on the bike).

Also there were a couple of over the top scenes, that forced us to suspend belief and almost provoked laughter. The worst was the whole airplane sequence with the most stupid parachute jump in living cinema memory. No wait... An even more idiotic sequence was filmed during the tenure of the poor Pierce Brosnan.

The action is a big step back in comparison with Casino Royale. TERRIBLE! ABSOLUTELY DISASTROUS!

Thankfully there is a lot more than action in the new Bond movie, hence a well deserved 7/10.
2/10
Montage failure spoils it
Finlandia190727 March 2009
If it were not for one single overwhelming issue, this film would have been much more watchable. This issue, of course, is the montage during the action scenes. Now I'll admit that it might be stylish to have a few .3 second transitions, but it's simply unsustainable for long stretches, and these filmmakers have this go on for minutes at a time.

So bad, in fact, is the outcome, that we left the movie before we were finished watching.

If you can stomach the strobe-light effect of the montage and not be turned off, you will find a fairly strong plot, solid performances by the actors and the special effects team, and innovation in many other areas.

Unfortunately, this movie needs to be re-done to reach its full potential.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worsest 007 ever
mladen-adamovic16 December 2008
Story = nothing.

Camera is awful, so fast camera movement while capturing actors in close I never seen. It is so destructing for the eyes and you cannot enjoy watching the movie.

This movie is 007 to skip. Fake one. Forget it.

I don't know what is nice about this movie apart that you'll see two nice portraits of Italy and that's about it.

I cannot understand why this movie is so bad and I think it definitely doesn't deserve so high ratings like here currently.

If you don't like the movie after 30 minutes, please stop watching because that is how this movie really looks like.
9/10
But it.
david-522622 April 2009
What's with all the anti-hype of all this camera movement stuff?

People, come on, it's not that bad. And it's only on a few small sections, I feel it adds to the grittiness that Daniel Craig has added to the bond series. And it's not used excessively.

It does, however, forcibly make you pay attention closer to the action scenes, to keep in control of what's going on. I think the editing is done beautifully.

Casino Royale had similar editing techniques, and they still pulled it off fine. You can kind of think of it as the same editing style as the Transporter movies. Quick, precise, but still effective.

This movie is incredible. Being a bond fan since the beginning, this one fits in very well. This movie feels very "bond-like" at the last action major sequence. Especially concerning the location of the last major action sequence. It sort of brings you back to the earlier days.

I watched this movie 3 times when I rented it. And for some reason it got better and better every time.

Great action movie.
6/10
Its not bond
barneybubbles894 November 2008
Think you are going to see another great James bond movie? yes? thats what i thought too, but in fact I was quite surprised as to how it was'nt what i expected.

It wasn't a bad film, action was amazing, acting was even better. The thing that let me down the most was the story.

When Casino Royale left of, it left you wanting answers, and when I heard that they were actually making a sequel i got quite excited.

Don't get me wrong, this film does tie up all the loose ends, but in a very roundabout way, and when you do get the answers you want, you are left thinking, "Was that it?" also most of things we like about bond are gone, like the gadgets, and really long car chases are gone, (as they were in casino royale) but this is made up for by action packed sequences and extremely shaky camera work... Motion sickness much? Not the best effort and definitely not the best story, but it still makes a good enough effort for a bond film, but it did feel more like a jason bourne film.

go see it for yourself.
2/10
Let's let Daniel Craig get back to what works
sshawhan78 April 2009
Quantum Of Solace was a big disappointment. EON Productions LTD. seems too intent on change for change sake and selling out to other commercial interests. Specifically, Quantum had the worst sound track and main title of all time. The music style is popular but does not lend itself to the Bond movies. Get back to main titles and end titles and Bond music that is weaved in and out of the whole soundtrack. Quantum was also weak in plot. Bond has always been matched vs world domination.The writers need to step up to the challenge. Cinematography was poor. Cutting in and out of shots quickly in a chase scene to make it seem like more is happening than really is happening is only distracting and annoying. Playing down the love interest's part is a big mistake. It's Bond ! In short, maybe it's time to call back in some of the old screenwriters, directors and music coordinators. I believe you've got the best Bond in Daniel Craig since Sean Connery. Give him a script. Give him a good love interest. Give him a good villain to play off of. Give him an opportunity to use the keen wit that the screen Bond has always had. Put it all to some memorable Bond music and add to the greatest cinematic serial character that has ever existed.
6/10
Final act of Casino Royale
timothyhilditch2 October 2021
This movie leads straight from Casino Royale with Bond looking for revenge? With a relatively short run time of less than 100 minutes it feels more like a final act of Casino Royale with all surviving characters returning. This movie also suffers from Casino's complicated plot to start with so if you want to follow you better catch up on Royale before you go in.

The action scenes are a lot worse than Casinos with too many cuts making it hard to follow. Bond isn't cool, calm and collected instead reckless and full of rage, making him seem like a indestructible piece of meat. The writing doesn't give him any good lines to work with nor does he interact much with the evil villain leaving no tension to work with.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
well um fire the editor
toddsheltontamu6 April 2009
well just started watching this bond movie and i hated it instantly. I've been a bond fan my whole life and this was terrible. Mostly the editing - the cuts at the start are WAY too fast - ruined the whole thing. This movie might be a lot better if re-cut - the editor should be fired.

Daniel Craig is a great bond but the editing on this ruined it - no wonder no one talked about this movie. I hope they don't recast bond because of it because it was not his failure - it was the failure of the editor. OMG it was bad. take that guy off whatever drugs he is doing.

Next bond movie would be better suited in the 1940's - maybe pre-ww2 as or even something in the middle of ww2.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
What's not to like?
apereztenessa-130 October 2021
Severely underrated, Quantum of Solace is one of Bond's best films. Marc Forster took on the challenge of reinventing Bond, and finally making use of Daniel Craig's muscular persona to create a new character. The script is intelligent and not wordy. Silly references to Bond's family (such as the ones in Skyfall, Spectre) are avoided in favor of a deep-felt pain inside of Bond that runs deep and only emerges in the latest hours of the night on a plane bar, like a secret so deep it can't be seen anywhere. The cinematography, editing, action scenes are extraordinary and avoid unnecessary explanations when none is needed (as in the spectacular opening scene that throws us in the middle of the action without context). Like many great films, Quantum of Solace doesn't give all the answers, asking instead the audience to fill in the gaps, resulting in a more personal experience. Don't believe the negative reviews. Quantum of Solace is a triumph.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quantum of Craig.
anaconda-4065827 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace (2008): Dir: Marc Forster / Cast: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenku, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Gemma Arteryon: Electrifying 007 flick about revenge. It opens within the midst of a car chase until settling on a story regarding trust, revenge and an environmental cover up that is somewhat unsatisfactory with its toying with revenge. Directed by Marc Forster with almost constant action. His range as director is far in terms of subjects and genres. To his credit are such underrated pleasures as Stranger Than Fiction and Monster's Ball. Now he takes aim at 007 and proves to have a knack for action. Daniel Craig plays a hardened James Bond who takes no prisoners, which can prove negative when clashing heroism with revenge. Olga Kurylenku plays the latest Bond girl who sets her sights on revenge as well. Mathieu Amalric plays the villain with charisma and charm but all will be stripped away in that final scene in a desert where resources are limited and fatal. Judi Dench plays M, whom questions Bond's tactics. The role is broadened giving Dench much more screen time as she comes into conflict with Bond's methods and tries to have him arrested. Gemma Arterton plays another festive female agent going by the intriguing name of Strawberry Fields. The revenge element seems too strong than need be but Bond fans won't be disappointed. Score: 7 / 10
6/10
Misdirected Bond
adi_hecht12 November 2008
Hopefully, this latest Bond won't set the any trends for the future installments, which with Bond are sure to follow.

Quantum of Solace tries to be continue Casino Royal's darker and more serious Bond interpretation. But terrible directing and chaotic script will leave you hardly following the plot.

There are 2 major problems with this film: The first is the terrible directing and camera work in the action scenes. The chases and fights are all shot in extreme closeups, almost never taking a step back for a wide-angle shot which lets the viewers see what's going on. And to make things worse, the action scenes are hyper-edited, cutting frantically between shots from different angles. The result is disorienting, confusing, and headache inducing. It takes more than just stunts to create flowing, exciting action, and this movie demonstrates just how difficult it is to direct action sequences.

The second problem is the fast-paced, convoluted script - It's simply too hard to follow. The story jumps too fast from one dead body to the next, characters enter without introduction and are killed off soon after. Unanswered plot points are left dangling everywhere. It's quite a mess, more than once eliciting a "wha?!?" reaction from the audience. And to top this all, the ending is so completely disjointed from the rest of the film, it feels like the writers taped a scene from the next Bond movie to add some running time to this one.

All in all, it's a very flawed Bond.
5/10
No where near as good as Casino Royale.
masoncheek18 September 2020
Even as its own movie, it just ok. The action scenes are poorly edited, and the villain is extremely mediocre. But it is enjoyable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Amount of Comfort...
cordaro941818 April 2009
Yes, the title "Quantum of Solace" is taken from a short story of Flemming's... this film however has nothing to do with it. The title and it's scientific meaning is quite applicable as at this point there is quite an amount of comfort with Daniel Craig as 007. Though a bit more violent than most of it's predecessors, 'Solace' follows the current formula with excellent results. Very little in the gadget department, but the right mix of guns, booze and hot broads. Connery (and to an extent even Lazenby) should be proud. Yes, Roger Moore was a bit outspoken on the violence, but he was the comedic Bond. A one two punch of 007 hasn't been thrown this hard nor this effective since the original debut of "Dr. No" & "From Russia...", the last one-two combination of any real 007 mettle being Moore's "For Your Eyes Only" & "Octo*****". Again, the formula of little gadgetry, a lot of girls and villainous stories. Though I agree with Judy Dench and Daniel Craig that the characters of 'Moneypenny' and 'Q' should be returned to the background environment, I'd hate for it to be at the expense of the current formula. The first 007 sequel (or prequel, depending on how you look at it) to pick up directly where the preceding film left off and introducing us to Quantum, the obligatory successor to 'S.P.E.C.T.R.E.' (which just sounds cooler anyway) we're given insight that Bond's job is far from over... and that there are sequels a plenty to follow. The mix of friends, villains and Bond Girls makes great contrast against Craig's brooding and bruised agent (both internally and externally). The fact that M can note "They will do anything for you, won't they?" is a great psychological dig at the many years established as the screen's most suave user of the female form... physically, mentally and fatally. Though I was not a fan of the opening title sequence (a departure from the established formula from Maurice Binder and his successors) I was pleased to see the return of the 'Three White Dots' at films end as a pre-cursor to the next film. A great popcorn film which keeps you in the seat. Well paced and action filled with very little lag.... no bathroom breaks.
5/10
The shining example of why this series doesn't need direct sequels
The_Amazing_Spy_Rises13 November 2008
It's Daniel Craig's second go round as everyone's favorite spy, James Bond, after the totally awesome Casino Royale. This film, Quantum of Solace, has the distinction of not only being the first direct sequel in the series, but also being one of the most disappointing films of 2008. The reason for it being a letdown is not because of Craig. It's not because of director Marc Forster. There are 3 reasons. One: it is a sequel in a series which does not need sequels. Two: it is perhaps the best example of why you need good writing in action movies. Three: it doesn't even look like a James Bond movie.

It is very hard to believe that the same men that penned Casino Royale, the men that know their story better than anyone, could write a movie so lost within itself and so disjointed to the point of extreme confusion. To me, there isn't a plot worth explaining. Part of it deals with Bond seeking revenge after the events of Casino Royale. Part of it deals with some new organization with some guy named Dominic Greene involved in said organization in some capacity. To put it simple, the plot is everywhere, and the script from Purvis, Wade, and Paul Haggis (I'm especially upset with him, considering the man is responsible for 2 Best Picture winners) makes little to no sense, even for a Bond movie.

I really don't have any problem with Daniel Craig here. Given the material, he is excellent. Stellar. Great. Brilliant. But my complaint again lies with the script. Craig's Bond in this installment feels less like the James Bond we know and love and more like the Jason Bourne we know, love, and chastise for being an "American Bond". Where's the charm? Where's the charisma? This entire movie gets enveloped in the fact that it is a sequel that it doesn't remember it's a Bond movie. Even his womanizing antics are extremely low profile here! The reason we all love James Bond movies is because he's the superspy with an ego, a killer smile, a quick trigger finger, and enough charm and charisma to fill an ocean. This approach to the character is gone in Quantum of Solace, but it's not Craig's fault. It is the script, once again (I really can't emphasize enough how great Craig is, because it's not his fault the writers messed up the character). I should add that the film's villain, Dominic Greene (Matheiu Amalric), wasn't a very compelling or interesting character, but he was well acted. Casino Royale's Le Chiffre was much better, and remains one of my favorite Bond villains.

Some of the things QOS does right would be the aforementioned great show from Craig, in addition to Judi Dench of course being wonderful as M, because the film actually uses their mutual trust as a main component of the film's plot (which is one thing I appreciated). Marc Forster is one of the last people I would've expected to direct an action movie, but my God, he knows his stuff as far as action goes. There are several "wow" moments in the movie backed up with great visual effects, along with tons of stylish explosions that will keep you interested.

When it comes down to "should I see this movie?", I think I'll say that you should, mostly because the people that will be upset with this movie will be people that watch Bond for Bond, rather than for the action, which you'll get plenty of. Craig's performance is again stellar to the point where he should get some minor awards consideration, and the action is top notch. However, the script's horrid characterization of a legend and disjointed plot tear down the movie, and this can all be attributed to the fact that it is a sequel, something this series never has, and never will need.
6/10
Bond Lacking Though Craig Perfect
therichersun14 November 2008
Keeping my comments short; script needed work. We as an audience need more depth of character in subplots and add more genuine humor. Add more soft moments to build intimacy between strangers, enemies and friends. We need a throwback to the older Bond series. We must compare using Sean Connery; had to go there! Craig is great- add a little more warmth. Let's make improvement on the next one. This one was just okay. The action is great, but not enough to carry the entire audience in age ranges. We need to get to know the characters and the relationships. In Casino Royale we had interesting characters to get to know and their varying idiosyncrasies... here everyone is just an enemy with an agenda. Too mechanical...make it more human. Make the cars more human…driving itself, sensing danger, etc.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond bleeds, how terrific
Okonh0wp16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Q's parting advice to James Bond before setting off for his retirement in "The World is Not Enough" was 1) to always have an escape plan and 2) never let them see you bleed.

It appears James Bond didn't take this advice and it has worked out for the better. Bond appeared to have wrapped up the entire series with Die Another Day's array of homages and outlandish gadgets, and most importantly, the end of Bond's contract.

But in a decade where sequels are money, Bond didn't adhere to exiting at what would have been an opportune moment. Like Batman Begins and Superman Returns, the dapper British agent got a remake. While I tend to see this later trend of reinventing franchises as a commercial ploy more than anything else, there's been a distinct change in Bond that I've come to enjoy: Mainly, the Daniel Craig incarnation of Bond is one who bleeds.

Pierce Brosnam would rip through armies of henchmen, without even messing up his hair or spotless tuxedo and frankly it was getting a little old.

The new James Bond series injects something that makes the series consequential: risk. Bond is capable of getting hurt, he feels remorse, he's capable of learning, and he's got room for improvement.

I have watched every James Bond films and I enjoy them as I do a film genre where I can see how every film deals with each of the checkpoints: Beautiful scenery, sexy girls, elaborate lairs, megalomaniac villains, and cool-looking gadgets. I do wish Quantum of Solace had more gadgets and the villain was a little more distinctive, but I have gotten a little tired of seeing Bond bed every woman and shoot every villain just because it was some protocol for the scriptwriters to follow and it was great to see the screenwriters actually approach these issues. Furthermore, it has started to get a little jarring to see what has happened in the news with Guantanamo Bay and the Blackwater scandal to still have one of our iconic heroes on screen taking lives first and asking questions later.

So that's what Quantum of Solace bought to the table, even further expanding on the direction that Casino Royale was taking the franchise. The action occupied, perhaps, a little too much time on the screen, but it was excellently choreographed. The Bond girls were striking and exotic, Jeffery Wright nailed his role as Felix and Mattheiu Almahric does what he can with a limited role. The film also takes us to some beautiful locations: Haiti, Italy, and Bolivia. Most importantly, however, Daniel Craig gives us a Bond who feels like a real person, flesh and blood, and that is a massive improvement.
3/10
Qunatum of solace... a Bond movie???
adrienzanetti-119 November 2008
It's not because Jason Bourne makes other secret agents in other franchises look totally gay that it means they had to turn bond into something he was never before... Sure, now he starts swinging real punches around and gets nasty dirty in his fights, he even starts to care for others... more emotional depths? ...harder outside and softer inside... And i'm not even gonna start over what happened to the plots, the villains, the gadgets... it's all gone at the benefit of pure real time hard core action... Yamakasi meets Bourne Identity meets top gear meets jack bauer??

Bond is definitely dead... to me!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine3 November 2020
Well, I loved the theme song, I honestly thought it didn't fit well with the Bond franchise (like the theme of The Living Daylights) but over all I really liked it as a rock song.

And Olga Kurylenko I thought was a great Bond girl, plus they brought back Jeffrey Wright as Felix (and it's a reboot so it's OK he has his legs) but it was nice seeing the same person play Felix twice in a row wasn't it?

But Q, M, and Moneypenny were conspicuously absent weren't they? The plot was pretty convoluted (even for a Craig Era Bond) the action was super choppy because in 08 we were moving into that choppy means action trope that never should have been, and overall the movie stank.

Plus, this is the first time we really got to see Craig's Bond who hates being Bond character come front and center and, honestly, that is the worst way to play Bond.
4/10
A Lost Bond
atifaziz778 January 2012
Since the introduction of Mr. Daniel Craig as James Bond, the charismatic personality and charm of Bond 007 has lost somewhere. Mr. Craig has given the Bond a much Macho character which somehow does not match with the aura of Bond 007 created in past movies. His suave, sophisticated, witty and charming personality has now been dubbed as macho / wrestling sort of person who is there to fight, fight and fight. Probably the management of film wants to compete with other thriller/action oriented movies at the expense of loosing the original Bond 007 personality and character.

So far, the Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace have proved to be run- of-a-mill action movies without seeing the Bond(ish) 007 style. I am a big fan of James Bond movies but these two films were failed to meet the expectations. Though Mr. Craig is a talented and handsome artist but the director and other senior movie management have not done justice with him.

I expect to see the real Bond character, which I think we all love, in upcoming movies of Bond.
7/10
The Bond that never was...
SophomoreSlump5 December 2008
In a nutshell:

The thing about Quantum of Solace is that it is verging on realism (like what the film-makers of The Dark Knight was going for). So that's what the film-makers did. They did a very serious Bond; no gadget, no silly dialogues, no out-of-mind diabolical villains, etc. And what it's trying to do is be different. A very not-so-Bond theme song, a late gun-barrel walk (which appears at the end of the movie), etc.

This works quite well with Casino Royale; the realism and the different-ness suits it well and makes it a masterpiece, brilliantly thought out film.

And surprisingly enough, unlike what many people said about it, it also works for Quantum of Solace.

The only problem is that Quantum of Soalce is very "messy"...

The acting is great. The plot is deep. The action is solid.

But it's just all over the place. The camera keeps switching angle you can barely see what's going on on screen. Take the car chase during the opening scene for example. Yeah, we're heading with a great start, but then everything was just all over the place. I can't even see which car is which. And the storyline is quite fast, too. And I don't mean it in a good way. Bond is also all over the place doing investigation and beating people up. It feels like someone in the editing room wanted to finish work early.

But other than that, I think Quantum of Soalce is a very "logical" sequel to Casino Royale. Not quite Bond, but still good enough.
4/10
Preposterous and messy
joepetrizzi12 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Following the spectacular effort in Casino Royale, it only took the production team one film after the "reboot" to drag the Bond series back down into the absurd. We were supposed to enter a new age of a more serious Bond, featuring mature plots and realistic characters. But this film is back to the same old tricks - Bond hunting down one of the leaders of a vague multi-national crime organization that the world's intelligence services know nothing about. Oh, and the villain also has a quirky sidekick - you see where this is going?

Bond and his friends are ridiculously omnipotent this time around - if he needs a car, he gets a car. If he needs a plane, he gets a plane. If he needs a gun, or a passport, or a credit card, or ties to the Bolivian national police - well, he gets them. Don't ask how, since MI-6 cuts him off 1/3 of the way through the movie. For crying out loud, they brought back the double agent from Casino Royale (Mathis) as a Bond confidante!

At one point in this movie, Bond and a woman (who may or may not be Bolivian intelligence - whatever that may be) fly a cargo plane into a desert, get their plane crippled by a fighter jet that Bond subsequently runs into a mountain, then jump out of the plane and share a parachute that they open about 50 feet off the ground. They show no signs of distress from this activity in the next scene. In fact - despite the fact that they are in the middle of the desert dressed for a dinner party (suit for him, cocktail dress for her) and without any kind of supplies - this is seemingly no problem. They just walk back to civilization - her in bare feet while carrying her high heel shoes!

But enough about the large leap of faith you'll need to suspend disbelief long enough to make it through this movie. It's just poorly made. The action sequences are choppy and tough to follow, some of the blue screen work is blatant, and any character outside of M and Bond are instantly forgettable. I could not discern any reason for the story to exist. I understood the plot, just not why I needed to hear about it. I finished watching the movie only 30 minutes ago and I already forgot the villain's name. One nice thing is that the movie has a lot of energy, but it needed more focus.

Summary: If this wasn't a Bond film people would be warning you to stay away from it. The movie is ridiculous but without the tongue-in-cheek recognition that it's ridiculous. Even with some old bad Bond films you could marvel at the cars, the locations, and the stunt work. But we don't even get that here. As long as people keep supporting the franchise then this nonsense is what we have to put up with, instead of the intelligent Bond thriller that fans of the series have been longing for. Quantum of Solace is not as insulting as something like Die Another Day, but for people hoping that Casino Royale was a step in the right direction, we are left feeling that QoS is another two steps back.
6/10
OK as a movie. bad as a 007 Movie
orass11 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
where do i begin. I'm a big fan of JB movies. i was waiting for more than a year for this one. I'm disappointed with this movie. where is the talking. he didn't talk at all. i thing throughout the movie said less than 100 words. why destroy the car right from the beginning, we didn't even get a chance to see it. bad story. its just a movie with no meaning and you will forget it as soon as you walk out the theater door. its certainly one of the worse JB's movies ever. this movie just an average movie over all, and bad movie as a James Bond. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
7/10
It's everything that The Dark Knight was not...in terms of a bad sequel
IgiS7 November 2008
Personally I'm not one of those people who regret that Bond is less "bondish" lately, without his famous drink, without his tag line etc etc. I really digged this new raw simple image of agent 007 in Casino Royale, but problem in QOS lays someplace else. Basic problem here is the script, which is plenty on action, and little on character development. Craig is doing what he can with what he got, but what he mostly encounters here are variety of chases, which are quite nice to watch, but I don't think, anyone will say that they match up with famous African rundown or Miami international action scenes from it's predecessor. Also we know that there must be something wrong with pace of the movie when 107min feels much longer than 144min of CR. But what made me really displeased with this movie, is that as I mentioned in the topic, in comparison to for example The Dark Knight(which was above many good thinks, sequel that did stand on it's own)QOS feels too much as a in between movie, and it is very much fault of it's script. Everything goes too much by the numbers, Bond just floats through entire picture, and then it's over, with of course cliffhanger ending. So generally this movie has his fair share of solid elements, mostly in terms of good acting, interesting villain, "bourne a like" camera-work, and always solid score from David Arnold(although once again not as good as previously), and on the downside like it's cold blood hero lack of heart and also originality.It's like Bond doesn't want to feel for him, and so we the audience don't. But hey, it's still better than many poor entries in the series, maybe Casino Royale was bar settled too high.
3/10
Disappointed
leonardodav13 November 2008
Quantum of Solace has been one of films I most eagerly awaited this year and it turned out to be a disappointment. Casino Royal had made me fall in love with James Bond, I enjoyed Daniel's interpretation as the .vulnerable yet brutal spy on Royal duty as I have never done with other great actors playing the part. I even cried at the end with Vespa's death. But this sequel has no story or I did not see it. It had only some scenes glued together by God knows what. oh, I remember some cars, guns and nothing else.

Daniel looked awesome and played in his key, but the lack of story made considerable damage to QoS. This sequel deserved something better. Much better.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad...
jemps91811 November 2008
I actually liked the title theme song by Jack White and Alicia Keys; I thought it was modern, evocative and punchy, not too dramatic. Or perhaps because I respond well to the White Stripes' brand of music. But while the sexy sand women were cool it wasn't as imaginative as Casino Royale's. Goldeneye's theme song is the most brilliant for me, I think.

As for the villains, I think General Medrano was overshadowed by the creepy Dominic Greene, played by the peerless Mathieu Amalric (The Diving Bell & the Butterfly). Casino Royale's first half was also more action packed and impressive with its parkour exhibition but Quantum of Solace is more consistent in its exposition.

Bond-girl wise, only Fields (Gemma Arterton) played it 'the usual way'. Olga Kurylenko (Paris, je t'aime, Hit-man, Max Payne) looked the unbelievable part of the usual model-with-an-agenda Camille but the lack of chemistry with Daniel Craig's Bond makes their tandem only shrug-worthy. At least Craig is finally slowly transforming into the role and isn't looking as primitive and thug-ish as he did in Casino Royale; he now looks more comfortable in a suit or out of it.

Overall, I think Quantum of Solace succeeded in cleverly staying away from the misogynistic theme while still retaining a little bit of the old fantasy image of James Bond, ladies' man. The old Bond flicks may be classics but aren't politically correct (even satirically), lending it a dated DOM-ish air. I think the brilliant direction of Marc Forster (Stranger than Fiction, Kite Runner, Monsters Ball) is what gave this franchise a bit more depth than usual.
10/10
Craig is amazing at playing Bond.
goshamorrell8 December 2021
A Q only in Quantum... Never again. Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits. The movie opens with Bond involved in a reckless car chase on the tollway that leads through mountain tunnels from Nice through Monte Carlo and down to Portofino in Italy, where Edward Lear lies at rest with his cat, Old Foss. I have driven that way many a time. It is a breathtaking drive. He chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we're essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other, intercut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching monster trucks. Let's all think together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by machinegun fire, no matter how many hundreds of rounds? The hit men should simply reject them and say, "No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie." Daniel Craig remains a splendid Bond, one of the best. He is handsome, agile, muscular, dangerous. Everything but talkative. I didn't count, but I think M (Judi Dench) has more dialogue than 007. Bond doesn't look like the urge to peel Camille has even entered his mind. He blows up a hotel in the middle of a vast, barren, endless Bolivian desert. There is no Q in "Quantum of Solace," except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. That Judi Dench, what a fox. Bond doesn't even size her up. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn't bring much to the party. Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it. Dominic Greene lacks a headquarters on the moon, or on the floor of the sea. He operates out of an ordinary shipping warehouse with loading docks. His evil transport is provided by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn't have to creep out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peers through.
5/10
A Quantum of Stupid
hatthecow7 February 2009
Iconic characters can change with the culture, its been this way since the Romans decided that Jupiter sounded more posh than Zeus, but sometimes these changes don't exactly feel right and this movie is a prime example. This movie has done more damage to the James Bond franchise than "Star Wars Episode I" did to it's respected franchise. The characterization was all wrong. James Bond was suppose to be witty and playful but you couldn't tell that had ever been the case with Daniel Craig spewing out lines of gruff manly dialog like he had become the son of Batman. We also get to see an emotional Bond who goes on crying about how every girl he loves dies which causes more gruff manly dialog. Suddenly with all the charm and wit removed from Bond there's no appeal, let me repeat there is no appeal to this style of writing. Visually this movie was severely lacking, the fun little fonts which told us where James was running off to distracted from the movie and made me wonder about the director's mental condition. Not only that the action sequences were incomprehensible a lack of a steady camera, the rapid cuts, and tight close ups made for poor form on everyone's part. All that said the one part of the movie that remained in the Bond formula was the girls, I say girls because Judi Denche's performance was enjoyable but she's well past cute. However this movie does contain some cute girls who had enjoyable performances, Olga Kurylenko being one, and thought of giving her less credit than she deserves is appalling. The whole idea I'm trying to reach is, sometimes formula's just work. James Bond is a formula that works much like Sherlock Holmes and the Three Stooges and when the formula is messed with everything goes to hell.
7/10
Bond filtered via "The Bourne Ultimatum"
seawalker8 November 2008
I have a theory about "Quantum Of Solace".

Marc Forster, who is a good art house Director ("Finding Neverland", "Monster's Ball", "The Kite Runner"), is signed to direct "Quantum Of Solace". Forster, who is very adept at directing performance based movies, quickly realises that he has no idea how to direct an action film. So, he researches, checking out some of the most successful action movies of the previous couple of years to get ideas and a feeling for tone, structure and look. Forster, finding his template, starts work.

"Quantum Of Solace" is Bond filtered via "The Bourne Ultimatum".

Now, don't get me wrong. I liked "Quantum Of Solace" just fine. Maybe it was a little pofaced and one-note throughout, and did not have the variation in plot of "Casino Royale", but I thought "Quantum Of Solace" was a good film. It started well and got better as it went along. It just did not feel like a Bond film. It felt like a Bourne film.

Scenes of intelligence mandarins tracking the action via high-tech surveillance. Bone crushing, close up, fight sequences. Super fast, adrenalised car chases. Sudden death. Blood. Dirt. Heroes and villains that really get hurt. The mental effect on a person of having to watch a person die. All classic Bourne.

Maybe all action films from a particular period do have a particular look and feel to them? I don't know. I will say that "Quantum Of Solace" does frequently achieve a kind of poetry of violence, especially in the 'Tosca' segment. "Quantum Of Solace" is refreshingly short, looks great and Daniel Craig is fantastic as the tormented, revenge driven Bond.

For me, though, the only truly traditional Bond moment was Bond's brief interlude with foxy Gemma Arterton's posh Agent Fields. Perhaps it was a tiny little hint of what the Daniel Craig/Bond persona might be like when/if he lightens up in future movies. Also, a nice little nod by the filmmakers back to a memorable exit in "Goldfinger". (Do you miss the daft names that Fleming used to give his female characters? Check out Agent Fields full name on IMDb. It will make you laugh. I did.)

I hope Daniel Craig makes another Bond film, but I hope that next time it is more Bond and less Bourne.
8/10
Granted its Not the Best Bond,but Craig Never Fails to Entertain,
lesleyharris3031 August 2014
Quantum of Solace is a great movie with a very well developed storyline and a brilliant cast.I will admit it's not the finest Bond film and is a disappointment compared to the previous film,Casino Royale,but I think this movie dosen't get enough credit,it still has some great action sequences and an overall very thrilling storyline.A lot of people will disagree with me,but I think Daniel Craig is the best Bond yet,he plays the character with such dedication and his Bond films are a lot more gritty than previous 007's.Olga Kurylenko is personally one of my favourite Bond girls,she is a very talented and attractive actress,her character had a lot of independence and a strong personality,which Bond girls rarely have,and you also felt like she didn't need him with her to keep her safe.Quantum of Solace isn't the best Bond,but it's not the worst either and I think fans of the previous films will definitely enjoy,as well as anyone looking for a good action or thriller.

James Bond heads to Bolivia to take down a suspicious organisation.

Best Performance: Daniel Craig
7/10
Martin Campbell should have directed this.....
p-steele10 November 2008
......after all, he has directed two of the best ever bond films. I don't know what Marc Forster was trying to do here. Everything that was good about Casino Royal was missing from this sequel. The characters are bland and the action was too predictable. There was nowhere near enough going on to keep me entertained. Yes, the action sequences were amazing, yes, Daniel Craig is probably the best bond ever but these two things alone cant save this sequel.

Had it not been for the action and the performance from Daniel Craig i would have given this film 4 stars. The story was too shallow. We all know Bond was out to get revenge but they could have added more to the story. I'm also not 100% sure if he did get revenge for Vespor's death.

So, in a nutshell, this was not what we have come to expect from Bond movies. As a stand alone film it's average at best. I would say watch it but don't expect much from the film.

Hopefully Bond 23 gets back to basics. The actors cant be blamed for this poor sequel, the blame solely lies with the director and the writers on this one! I suppose the writers strike in the US did not help!!
8/10
The name's still Craig...
MaxBorg8910 November 2008
For forty years, the line "The name's Bond, James Bond" was a gimmick, a nice tradition that was carried on from actor to actor (and from generation to generation). However, the use of that sentence at the end of the superb Casino Royale was more of a necessity, for two reasons: a) that film was all about Bond becoming who he is today; b) it was Daniel Craig's way to prove the naysayers wrong regarding his ability to play the role. As such, there's no need for him to say it in Quantum of Solace: we already know he is James Bond.

Being the first direct sequel in the franchise's history, Quantum begins exactly where Royale ended, with the grief-stricken 007 kidnapping a certain Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) to find out more about the death of his beloved Vesper. After a pulse-stopping car chase on Lake Como in Italy, he learns the following: White works for an organization known as Quantum, which makes deals with all kinds of people for profit's sake. If Bond wants a definitive answer to his questions, he must find the real brains behind Quantum, the sleazy Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). In order to do so, though, he has no choice but to go rogue, since M (Judi Dench) is justifiably convinced he is driven by a pure desire of revenge. And so begins a chase around the world, with our favorite spy's only allies being the beautiful and angry Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who's after Greene for personal reasons as well, René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), the only man in the business whose allegiance isn't in question, and good old Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), who doesn't give a damn about the CIA's orders to protect Greene and kill Bond.

Even more than Casino Royale, Quantum is heavily indebted to the Bourne trilogy, with the hectic camera-work and amazing stunts (the whole first act tops anything in Royale), which could have been a liability in the hands of new director Marc Forster, an action ignoramus who prefers character-driven dramas (Monster's Ball is the prime example). But, with the new century and the Cold War long gone, that's exactly what the series has become, also thanks to Paul Haggis's scripting inputs: what matters is Bond himself, nothing else. And what is he like? Well, he's still edgy, impulsive, emotional, with no fine taste when it comes to drinks (he just gets drunk) and no interest in bedding every woman he sees. In other words, he's human, and that's where Craig's battered, vulnerable performance really shows its best side, bringing out something viewers had never seen in previous films, even, dare I say it, the ones starring Sean Connery (the closest anyone ever came to a similar result was George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and we all know that didn't end well, despite the film's quality). Even the action scenes are beyond pure spectacle because they are vital to finding the essence of the character.

This being a Forster & Haggis picture, it also means the story is suited to fit our times instead of providing overly implausible sci-fi scenarios (read: the ice palace and invisible car in Die Another Day): the sociological theme, unheard of thus far for a Bond movie, is the environment, and how businessmen are ruining it to make money. It's not very original, but with the right approach and characters it works: Greene, as far as that matter is concerned, isn't just a great villain as played by the talented Amalric, he's also a believable one - no world domination or other overblown stuff on his agenda, just plain and simple financial security, much like Le Chiffre in the previous installment. Kurylenko does a remarkable job too, giving depth and charm to the latest Bond girl in the same way Eva Green did before her, and the established cast (Dench, Giannini, Wright) is spot-on as expected.

A perfect sequel, then? Not quite: for one thing, Gemma Arterton's presence is basically an excuse to insert references to a few classic Bond moments, Goldfinger especially (she has a nice name, though), and the climax, while realistically huge, is a bit rushed and unsatisfactory (perhaps because Haggis did the last rewrite with the writers' strike just behind the corner), but then again it is hard to top the exquisite last act of Casino Royale. Whatever defects Quantum of Solace has, though, should not be taken as a sign of the usual drop in quality kicking in gradually. It may lack some of its predecessor's extra punch, but it has emotion, excitement, and humor that make up for any minor losses. In the end, it's just what people expected: Ian Fleming's James Bond. And when he returns, there will be more of the same.
4/10
Not a bond film
garethsec1 November 2008
I went to see the film the day it came out. With a lot of hype surrounding the film and after Casino Royale it had a lot to deliver but I left the cinema disappointed. I cannot understand why the things that make bond what it is have suddenly disappeared and we are left with an average action film where the main character happens to be called James bond. No 'Q' or gadgets, the James bond theme tune is never played unless very subtly, he doesn't order a 'vodka martini shaken, not stirred', he no longer seems to carry his national pride, no OTT villain and he never says 'The names bond, James bond.' I know that the franchise was heading in the wrong direction with films like Die another day and it needed changing but James bond is supposed to be far fetched and a bit silly and now they've tried to create a 'Bourne' experience which just doesn't compare. The action scenes, although well put together, are too short and don't take your breath away, the story is weak and hard to follow and the film is too short. If this wasn't a James bond film then its probably a 6 or 7 out of ten action film but it just doesn't meet the requirements that, in my opinion, makes James bond unique. True Bond fans will not like this film.
7/10
Bond.... unbonded
kunalkhandwala19 November 2008
He does not introduce himself as "Bond. James Bond." He does not have gadgets because 'Q' does not even exist. 'M' does not say "grow up 007" because he does not even flirt with Moneypenny with his charming mannerisms and he does not go to bed with the first woman he meets at an event. Instead, he slams the side of an Aston Martin against the tunnel wall right at the start of the chase sequence, beats the living daylights out of the spy who infiltrates his hotel room merely with physical combat that involved his fist, some broken glass and a knife, runs over Siena's rooftops, rides a wooden boat with such aggression that he doesn't need ammunition…. he just slams the boat through whatever comes in his way, pilots a Dakota plane over a desert in a thrilling dog-fight sequence, only to escape without a parachute after the plane loses an engine, then blows up a hydrogen fuel cell tank to escape from an conflagrated room and finally, he lets the villain run lose in the desert to have him experience his end rather than inflicting it upon him. Bond dirties his hands a lot, bruises himself, kills people whom 'M' wants alive, loses his sleep over the death of his love Vesper and relentlessly pursues his vendetta. Bond is an animal out of control as he unleashes his unstoppable fury that is led by an inconsolable rage. He is hurt and therefore, he is mean. So long to the suaveness, charm, wit and tackiness of Moore, Connery and Brosnan. Daniel Craig's Bond disappoints you if you expect him to be the secret agent 007 that you have been used to seeing in 20 films of the franchise. Quantum of Solace will disappoint you if you expect Bond to be the charismatic hero. Evolution, as they say, is inevitable in changing times.

Director Mark Forster (Kite Runner) carries out one aspect of James Bond that begun with Martin Campbell's revival of the series in Casino Royale. Bond is still raw. He is still learning. 'M' is still annoyed by his impulsive actions and doubts her judgement of his character. That, mind you, does not alter the fact that Daniel Craig befits the new Bond to perfection. Although, the action provides for a more realistic and slick depiction, it loses out on the charm of Bond's beautiful indulgences that include the desirable Aston Martin DBS. In a bid to trace the link between Le Chiffre and his personal agenda of seeking those responsible for Vesper's death, Bond encounters Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a stunning beauty who is rough as a horse trainer but drives the smallest of cars around and whose personal agenda introduces Bond to the Kingpin of the nexus, Dominic Green (Mathieu Amalric). He is the sly villain who plays a game of deceit and intellect behind the backs of governments and agencies. Bond uncovers Green's plans of resource exploitation in Bolivia but in the process, gets rid of vital leads that only infuriate 'M' and the American agencies. But through his determined effort and unyielding quest to seek those responsible, Bond regains M's trust and through a series of blasts in a fuel cell powered hotel in the desert, achieves his end.

The primary action sequences center around the four elements of Earth (car chase), Water (boat chase), Air (Dakota dog-fight) and Fire (climax) and provide definitive moments of sophistication and nuance that one would expect from an action film with a guy named James Bond in it. Even though, Forster chooses to kill the Bond that we know and send the new one in his quest to seek solace in the Bolivian desert, he retains some old characteristics to embody them into the new 007. These include Bond's cold reaction to M's derision, his wit in play with women such as Camille and Ms. Fields, his instinctive reactions when he suspects that someone is in his hotel room, the teasing manner in which he checks in with Ms. Fields into a luxury hotel claiming that they were teachers on a sabbatical who have won a lottery, his sarcasm with Camille and his surprisingly humorous intervention when masterminds discuss their plan for Bolivia while attending an Opera (which is a remarkably intelligent sequence). But he has lost his sleep, he talks deeply about revenge, he enters the scene with sudden, smashing form as he jumps on the hood of the SUV (climax) or jumps his motorbike over boats, being reckless and calculative at the same time, forceful and almost like a piece of rock that you would fling over the surface of the lake.

The exotic and rough looking Olga Kurylenko is a stunner and for a change, she does not bed with Bond as the typical Bond-girl would but maintains a distance through the end of the film. Judi Dench has aged but has more to do in this film than simply watch a screen to monitor Bond's movements. Mathieu Amalric plays the villain very well. He doesn't need a bloody eye to portray malice but his plot plays for villainy in the film.

Despite its flaws of over-edited sequences, lack of 'Bondism' and the intro credits with 'another way to die' playing in the background that makes for the dullest Bond opening of all time, Quantum Of Solace moves James Bond to another level that we are not totally familiar with and that perhaps is the film's downfall in the 'critical' domain but it promises the entry of 'Q', the secret agent's finesse, womanizing, martinis –shaken not stirred and a whole lot of wit and humour. Bond has moved on from a vengeance seeking storm to a mature secret agent who has won the trust of the MI6 and we should eagerly await the next installment with all the fireworks that we have been deprived of while he found Solace.

  • 7.446 on a scale of 1-10.
8/10
An entertaining bond flick
PersianPlaya4087 July 2009
The James bond follow-up to Casino Royale, which was an impressive debut for Daniel Craig as bond, is not as efficient in telling the story, nor as creative, but it has much more action, eye candy, and a better homage to the older Bond films, especially the Roger Moore ones. As was the case with Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight, it seemed that Casino Royale set up the atmosphere for more action to come in Quantum of Solace, unfortunately Quantum of Solace wasn't a masterpiece of scenes and sequences along with story lines as The Dark Knight was, however this was kind of expected as Casino Royale, a good film, was no masterpiece either. But to its credit, Quantum of Solace is far superior to any Pierce Brosnan Bond film, and a pretty entertaining movie.

Marc Forster is suppose to be a better choice for this type of film than Martin Campbell, I mean forster clearly has better films uner his belt, but it seems Campbell who is known for action adventure/films, would have probably been a better pick for this one as well. Forster made some decent dramas with Fining Neverland and Stay and a really good drama with Monster's Ball. His vision is nice here in Quantum of Solace, but as far as direction, visual aspect and overall production, I liked Casino Royale more, but no doubt about it, all in all, Marc Forster is a better director, and it was interesting to see him direct this Bond flick. Both The Kite Runer and Stranger than Fiction are two of his films I haven't seen, thus I didn't comment on them and I've heard great things about his upcoming project which is a collaboration with Michael Stracyzsnki who has adapted a Max Brooks novel and wrote last year's Changeling script.

Back to this film, Its not supposed to be realistic, and its plot isn't the most engaging, but it at least manages to do something that Michael Mann's Miami Vice definitely didn't do, and that is keeps us entertained throughout the entire movie. Overall, a must-see for Bond fans and action fans. 8/10 #433 on my list of favorite movies of all-time.
8/10
Short, fast and explosive
michielv-laarhoven28 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The twenty-second Bond movie is the shortest, the fastest and the most action-packed Bond movie ever. It was mostly filmed with hand-held camera and there was about one second between every shot. It reminded me to the Bourne trilogy. Something I disliked in this movie. Bond is not Bourne.

Once again Daniel Craig played a very good Bond. His coolness, his hardness... but he has the charm of Bond. He's my favourite Bond. While not as good as Eva Green, Bondgirl Olga Kurylenko played her role pretty well. A little role was given to Gemma Arterton, but she did great! Her charisma with Craig was just perfect. In the scenes with her, Craig showed his charming side of Bond, which was a nice addition to the film. Then we had the villain, Dominic Greene. Many people think he's not threatening enough, but I think he was the perfect creepy, arrogant villain.

David Arnold's Bond music was good. He made some nice, raw themes and it fitted well with 'Casino Royale'. Also Vespers theme came back, from which I think is a very sensitive theme. It reveals the sadness in Bonds character.

The story was fine, but it was not fine for Bond. It wasn't a Bond story. The new realistic style works out very well (to me), but I think it's very risky too. A realistic story about water and oil shortage just isn't fitting with Bond. Where 'Casino Royale' did just the right thing with the whole poker thingy (that = Bond), this story is just a little too few Bond.

I love the new, more realistic style, but Bond 23 just has to be a little more Bond. I don't need to see Q and all his nonsense, but more in the direction of 'Casino Royale', which is the best Bond movie to me.

But... I think 'Quantum of Solace' is one of the best Bond movies to me. I really love the new style and Craig does a great job as James Bond.

***I'm from Holland, so it is possible that there are some mistakes in my review.***
4/10
Poor direction, poor plot, poor film.
stefanlsb2 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is my least favourite Bond of all time. The plot is just dull. Damien Greene is probably the most boring villain in Bond history. The idea was that he was creating a monopoly using the water. Heardly destroying the earth while stationing your humans in space, is it? Fleming would have hated this. There is no great tech, no Q or Monney Penny and he doesn't even sleep with the Bond girl. Every action scene is just a rapid flash of images. The beginning scene is particularly poor, as both Bond's car and Quantum's car are black in colour, making it difficult to follow. The music is also poor. Another Way to Die is just not a Bond song.

Thank god we didn't get another one of these, otherwise the Bond series would simply be lost.
A very disappointing follow-up to "Casino Royale"
GusF20 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unfortunately, Daniel Craig's second film as Bond does not come anywhere close to matching the quality of his first. He is as impressive as he was in "Casino Royale" but this film's script is very uninspired and just plain boring. While "The Man with the Golden Gun", "A View to a Kill" and "Die Another Day" were all worse, I thought that this was the most boring Bond film since "Thunderball". The title may come from an Ian Fleming story but it's still a very dull one.

Mathieu Almaric is a good actor who is saddled with an uninteresting character in the form of Dominic Greene. In comparison to other main Bond villains, he has no distinguishing characteristics in terms of his personality or characterisation. He may be ruthless and amoral but that's nothing we haven't seen before. His evil scheme is rather uninteresting and straightforward, offering few real surprises. The Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko may have an odd choice to play the Bolivian agent Camille Montes but she is quite impressive in the role. However, her character is far too derivative of Melina Havelock in "For Your Eyes Only" on the one hand and Wai Lin in "Tomorrow Never Dies" on the other. She likewise offers nothing new and the female agent character type – which it is rather overused at this stage – has done better in previous films. Admittedly, it's been done worse too! As in "Die Another Day", the film was going very well and was classic Bond until the female lead showed up but the turn for the worse wasn't their fault. Judi Dench is as effortlessly excellent as ever but the material that she was given wasn't up to standard. However, the fact that the maternal undertones from the last film have become overtones was interesting and I liked that she gradually develops greater trust in Bond.

Again, the standout supporting actor is Giancarlo Giannini as René Mathis and he once again plays the role with great charm. I think that it was a serious, serious mistake to kill the character off as he could have contributed so much more to future Bond films but his death scene is by far the best in the film and the most poignant death of any male ally in the series' history. Gemma Artertron gets my vote as the most boring Bond girl ever as Strawberry Fields, though I quite liked the "Goldfinger" reference with her death. As in the previous film, Jesper Christensen and Jeffrey Wright were very good as Mr White and Felix Leiter respectively but were given far too little to do. I hope that they both return in Bond 24 with more to do. Rory Kinnear is good as Bill Tanner but he's no Michael Kitchen. Of all the actors in smaller roles, the always entertaining Tim Piggott-Smith as the Foreign Secretary was the only one who made an impression on me. Sometimes older actors with presence can help lift parts of a lacklustre film and Dench, Giannini, Christensen and Piggott-Smith were able to do so on this occasion. Overall though, this film was one of the weakest casts of any Bond film.

I quite liked the music but it didn't set the world on fire. Outside of Bond chasing Mitchell in the early part of the film, the action scenes were as uninspired as many of the characters.
8/10
Not as bad as I remembered
MattHankinson15 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I first watched this in the cinema in 2008 at age 14/15 and remember my girlfriend at the time falling asleep! It's always been the Daniel Craig one which wasn't very good. So...I have been watching all the bonds from the beginning and I've reassessed my opinion of Quantum Of Solace 13/14 years later.

It's not as bad as I remembered. Some of the action scenes are very good although the opening sequence is very fast for a bond.

The chase scene with the traitor bodyguard in Italy was good and had elements that were similar to the parkour scene in Casino royale - very reminiscent of Daniel Craig's tenure as bond.

Some of the computer stuff is very technical and futuristic - almost too much - how do they understand anything. Also we seem to have lost the witty side of bond along with Q and his gadgets.

However Miss Fields lying naked on bed dead is very bond just like the iconic scene from goldfinger.

Loved how he made Greene drink oil, and love how Olga Kurylenko's character got her revenge also. That's what maybe people don't like about this film, it's quite modern, dark and focused on revenge but I feel like that is part of Bond's arc this time in the series.
9/10
A fast paced and very entertaining film
screenwriter-1428 November 2008
Once again Judi Dench and Daniel Craig and a terrific cast come together in a fast paced and dynamic film that hits you like a speeding bullet from the first frame to the final scene. Bond's "fighting the forces of evil" and the lush settings of Italy and Haiti make QUANTUM OF SOLACE a wonderful travel log of breath taking chases across roofs, in the water and out. Daniel Craig is a great Bond-handsome, lithe, masculine, subtle and very physical. His work with Judi Dench is brilliant to watch the back and forth that goes between them. But in the end, it is the physical force of Daniel Craig's James Bond that really drives QUANTUM OF SOLACE and makes the film a solid one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Most underrated James Bond movie. it is actually sequel to Casino Royale
mohinderchugh30 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I think this is one of the best and most underrated James Bond movie. it is actually sequel to Casino Royale and is necessarily darker than Casino Rpyale. Bond has been shown as a human who is emotionally shattered due to Vesper's death and wants to investigate and avenge her death.

Daniel Craig further extends his takeover of the role, he exudes a sense of sadness with a ruthless drive to move forward with his mission.

Would definitely recommend watching Casino Royale on DVD before you watch this movie in case you want to connect the missing dots..
A twenty-first-century action thriller, featuring James Bond
jimjo121614 May 2010
It's unfair to compare QUANTUM OF SOLACE with the old James Bond films. Daniel Craig's movies have an entirely different style and tone. They are gritty and real-ish. Serious spy thrillers set in the modern world.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a good follow-up to CASINO ROYALE (2006), although the former is not as good as the latter. Daniel Craig is back as a brutal James Bond and the film continues the series' new deadly serious tone.

In this outing, James Bond investigates a top-secret global crime organization. When MI6 isn't sure it can trust 007, Bond goes rogue. In that respect, and the underlying revenge theme, the film is similar to LICENCE TO KILL (1989). The story is pretty interesting, with betrayals, reveals, and twists and turns along the way. It rounds out the 007 origin story started in CASINO ROYALE and sets up the new Bond universe for future installments.

At first glance QUANTUM OF SOLACE may not seem like a "Bond film". There's no gun-barrel opening. There are no fun spy gadgets. James Bond is more thuggish and less suave. There's very little humor. The action scenes are edited together with quick cuts and enhanced with digital touches.

But the film does have many of the James Bond staples. Exotic locations (Italy, Haiti, Austria and Bolivia). Action. A lovely female companion. A casual fling between Bond and a woman he just met. A gray Aston Martin. There's even a gala scene where Bond gets to wear a tuxedo.

Still, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is stylistically unlike any other Bond film. It doesn't even try to "look" like a "Bond film". It has its own style. The quick cuts, the different typefaces, some interesting camera angles. The director seemed to want to make a more "artistic" James Bond movie. There's a fight scene intercut with an opera performance that is totally un-Bond-like, but pretty interesting nonetheless.

There's plenty of action, including a car chase, a foot chase, and a boat chase. One of my favorite sequences involves an airplane escape. This movie makes full use of 21st-century film-making techniques, enhancing the action scenes with CGI when needed (although there's still a lot of quality stuntwork). There's even a little bit of slo-mo. But the movie is edited with such quick cuts that I believe the action suffers. The viewer can't fully appreciate the sequences because of all the jumping around and close-ups.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not one of my favorite James Bonds, but I did like it. Parts of it, at least. It may not have the familiar "feel" of a Bond film, but it fits with the serious tone of the revamped series. It certainly has none of the campiness that brought down some of the lesser (older) Bond movies. It's an action thriller, and as such it is occasionally thrilling. However, it lacks that special something to set it apart as both a Bond film and a generic thriller. It's serious and gritty and action-packed and it has hints of 007's signature coolness, but the villain and climax were underwhelming and the editing was too choppy. It's good, but not great.

* * *

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the twenty-second official James Bond film and the second to star Daniel Craig as 007. The Bond girl is Olga Kurylenko. The villain is Mathieu Amalric (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY). The secondary Bond girl is Gemma Arterton. Judi Dench returns as M for the sixth time. Jeffrey Wright reprises his role as Felix Leiter of the CIA.
6/10
Eh
capietrafitta13 December 2008
This movie was a good sequel to the first, but it was so dry. It was just a movie, the story was terrible. I'm not going to talk about the story but this movie was more about how terrible the US is toward foreign diplomacy. It was a story about corruption where 007 was the one that had to straighten everyone out. I would have given this movie a much worse rating if it weren't for the great action sequences, other than that...snoozer If you enjoy good fight scenes, decent car car chases and hot women then I would suggest this movie. I am surprised this movie has stayed in the top 5 for so long. Casino Royale had a great story, good suspense, and great twists. Not that Solace doesn't have any twists, because it does, but you find yourself just not caring towards the end.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
James Bourne (And Not In a Good Way)
cdjh-8112530 December 2018
Like Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is unlike any other Bond film that came before it. The sad thing is that in Casino's case that was a massive benefit to the film whereas Quantum of Solace is a disappointing entry to the series as opposed to being an excellent sequel that should've better come out of Casino Royale's momentum.

Craig is once again excellent as the character and portrays him as more wounded than he did in the previous entry. His arc was the strongest part of the film for me I was invested in his vendetta and found the conclusion to his arc to be a fitting end to a two-film arc. The support characters are mostly solid, Judi Dench is once again excellent as M and Olga Kurylenko was a solid foil for Craig that had a good arc that I was able to get invested in.

The Film also looks fantastic. The desert settings as long as the all the other world wide locations all make for solid cinematography that does make for a satisfying visual experience. That's where the positives mostly end for me.

Marc Foster is a director I admire but I did not care for his work in this film. The action is scattered and messy, it's almost impossible to follow and goes by too quickly for it to make an impact. The way he paces the film is also far too quick. It feels as if almost every scene is rushed where very little carries weight because there is very little time put towards making individual scenes mean anything.

The villains were also the most basic exercises for antagonists. After the depth that was given to the last films villains is sad to see that the filmmakers made such little effort to give the antagonists any depth or real motivation. The it plan is beyond ridiculous that never feels like it has any urgency to it. The rivalry between them and bond isn't built up well and they energy fell like a true threat.

The film overall is just underwhelming, it's almost completely forgettable with very few redeeming qualities. Craig's performance and Bonds arc are some ways to hook you in but almost everything else weighs them down. Despite the film looking great the messy and shaky directing almost completely hides that fact. It just doesn't feel like a true bond film and instead more like a cheap, lazy Jason Bourne rip off and that's something I should never feel about a bond film with this being the definitive action franchise.

4.3/10 - C- (Poor)
9/10
Really liked it
alkinsey198210 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I never let other peoples' views influence me before I see a film, and this was no exception. But after the first few minutes I thought I might have been wrong. The opening sequence was frankly annoying with excessive editing and that shaky camera, and as for the song, (and I hadn't heard it before), well I never thought I'd say this but it makes Madonna's Die Another Day sound good.

But when the film started for real, all that was soon forgiven. The action was breathtaking, the story was good and the rough edge to Bond's character was retained, Craig's Bond being the most human so far. I'm not ashamed to say that I was touched when he held the dying Mathis to his chest. He's also an irresponsible and dangerous Bond, a side which the character needed. The main villain was a little weak, but that was balanced out by a Bond girl who was as strong and as motivated as Bond without trying to surpass him as we saw with Jinx in DAD.

Judy Dench was great again, and I liked the portrayal of Leiter too. I hope that he and Bond will soon be friends as before. Interesting too, was a moment that I took as a homage to Goldfinger, though I won't reveal it here. And there were of course some good locations some glamorous, some not; a good balance. Curiously, they brought back the traditional gun barrel sequence though not until the end of the film.

Hold back your opinions until the end.
6/10
Fails due to weak plot in an otherwise solid film.
balder7775 November 2021
Watching this Bond film in 2021 with an objective eye, I could not help but notice how good the action scenes were, often actually better than something you would see in Spectre or Skyfall. This is a Daniel Craig that is still very youthful and in his absolute prime. There are also good locations, a very hot Bond girl(s).

So what went wrong? The plot. The plot is extremely weak and is basically about thwarting the plans of one of the managers of the Quantum organisations (itself later known as a subsidiary of Spectre). That's right, the entire plot is about ending a sub-boss, and the villain truly feels like a sub-boss and not a main villain. It also does not help that the film is nearly 2 hours long, and mostly just hard action scenes chasing the sub-boss around.

So altogether, you end up watching this film and forgetting about it, because nothing of note actually happened. You are left with the question: Why was this made? Actually a waste of Daniel Craig's hard work and youth. This basically could have been Spectre in 2008 and was a wasted opportunity.
4/10
Bond series sinking with economy....
ruudsach8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6 Reasons why NOT to watch this movie:

1. Length is approx 100mins but to explain such in depth political movie one has to go slow (Bad mistake Craig for recommending your director for this movie.)

2. Who is the cinematographer, man? Action was extraordinary, its just that you cannot see it. (What do I mean by that? Action was so close that one could hardly understand. Anyone who watched Casino Royale and Die Hard 4.0 would tell its mindless action in this movie, really. The one thing people would if ever want to buy to see the action will be severely disappointed.)

3. Why would our Villain be interested in water than oil? Really why? Does acquiring water sources fetch more money than oil? (That really did it for me. Its OK if action is one-on-one, I can tolerate that but no sensibility?)

And yeah, even if you acquire water sources to terrorize people (resource terrorism), why would our villain terrorize already exploited country (In our case Bolivia, which was in shortage of water).

I know that makes no sense at all. Although, how Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) was compromised and how our big secret villain network works (Quantum) was the only sensible part.

4. No Comedy. Zero Comedy. i.e. no entertainment with any kind of punches.

5. Its more like a sequel to Casino Royale, than being an individual case for Bond. There is nothing wrong with that only that it will take more than 5 movies for our current Bond to end this "Quantum cartel", which will take more than 10 years. Are you ready to wait that long???

6. Comedy 0, Gadgets 0, Punches 0, alright.

But no Bond sex, no Bond hitting on girls, no sexual romance (unique in Bond movies). What the hell? I guess it was done to please (huge) Asian audience. But as of now they lost a real Bond movie fan in me (and many thousands more I assume).
5/10
running time 110 minutes, feels like 150 minutes.
JJ-11131 October 2008
Daniel Craig returns to the roll of James Bond, with as much energy and screen prescience as Casino Royale. What a shame he out acts the script. For a film running time of 110 minutes, it felt like 150 minutes.

The film starts a short time after the end of Casino Royal, with 007 returning to Uk Secret location in Italy to debrief his captured mystery Man with the Money.

The theme of the Quantum of Solace, is vengeance, Along the way he manages to bring down a Power Driven Badie.

From the moment the film starts, it is full of pace and energy, However One does feel that, some of the set sequences, appear similar. Thankfully the stunts do not look CGI created.

You will have to decide if you like the film, For such a wonderful restart I think the story was lacking.
6/10
James Bond
cervantesangi20 May 2020
I believe Quantum of Solace is the next movie after Casino Royale. I found this movie really interesting because it talks more about James Bond life. It talks about how he lost someone who he deeply loved. It's a nice action movie but some of the scenes were a little bit weird. A lot of new actors and actresses that I have not seen before. I believe it's one of the shortest movies of James Bond since most of his movies are over two hours long. Overall it was a good movie but it might need a better improvement on some scenes and stunts as they looked too exaggerated.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The real Bond is gone
Deveousdevil9 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
**MINOR SPOILERS**

I am a big Bond fan and will say that this movie left me upset both at the kind of action movie it is and the fact that they destroyed the Bond image.

James Bond is the coolest spy in the world. He has class, charm, wit, humor etc. Although I like Daniel Craig in movies like Munich and Defiance, he is not James Bond, never will be. First off, he has not a shred of emotion other than hate, anger, cold blooded vengeance, etc. He makes no jokes (writer's fault), never smiles and lacks a lot of charm. He acts more like some a-hole jock who kills then he does a man who acts classy and woos women over with his quirks and facial expressions.

Next, the plot line is ridiculous. An evil environmentalist??? What happened to trying to stop the evil genius from taking over the world, or preventing a bomb from going off while fighting in outer space, or some other cool unrealistic plot. Bond movies are supposed to be about imagination and fun. Instead, like in Casino Royale (when they made references to 9/11 attacks) they relate the stories to present day realistic scenarios. When I watch a Bond movie I want to escape to a world where the impossible is possible accompanied by suspenseful action packed ending with real fire, not CGI graphics, which really upsets me that they did that.

The action sequences, though there are quite a few, are painful to the eyes. No shot lasts for more than about 0.5 seconds. You can't even tell what's going on half the time because the shots are so confusing.

The Bond girl/girls are a joke, I won't even get into that.

Bottom line, it's worth a watch just so you can judge for yourself, but the fact remains that almost all the original Bond movie qualities are gone, and this remains a confusingly filmed short (about 90 minutes) action movie, not a Bond Movie.
2/10
There was surely a better way of spending a Saturday night
Yorkie061 November 2008
Don't often feel compelled to write a review - but in this case OMG! Bond - that's James Bond - err wasn't! He was a miserable, dour faced, vengeful, souless man (need I go on?) He's definitely had a personality transplant! Where was the charm? where were the Bond clichés? (yes - they ARE integral to Bond!) I have to confess - I am not a Daniel Craig fan - but... since he's got the current licence to kill (though definitely not thrill) I will endure. I WANT to see why other people rate him - but definitely failed in QoS.

It's amazing, having read all the reviews before mine, how it seems you either LOVE this movie or HATE it! Sorry but I am in the latter category. I thought it was my vertigo playing up at first, I had to look away from the screen (thank God we were sitting at the back) several times. The editing was appalling - the action sequences seemed like they were pieced together 1 frame at a time and then stuck together in the most haphazard way one had simply no idea what was going on! Hand held cameras used for realism??? No - it just looks jerky and home video-ish. Just lots of bangs, crashes, and explosions in no particular order.

It was obvious the movie thought to rely on the action to portray the story. Oh sorry! there wasn't a story - or not that I could fathom anyway. The baddie was not evil enough, the Bond girls had only very brief interaction with himself, (perhaps he's lost his libido along with his charm)and the plot? I think I lost that! I know it's hard to keep coming up with new stunts and thrilling scenes, but this one didn't even try. We had car chases, boat chases, air plane chases - haven't these already been done to the death before?(and far better than this!)There was no originality in this movie at all.

The dialogue was uninspiring - but since there wasn't much of a story that's hardly surprising. In fact Daniel's script must have been pretty short since must of it must have read: cut to action scene: I would like to end on a positive note but can't think of anything.
6/10
Disappointing
Tosh_Togo31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Casino Royale we all (including myself) had high hopes for this as it was effectively the second part of a two-parter starting with CR. But unlike CR this had comparatively no dialogue (Craig was suddenly the strong SILENT type..) and no narrative although the action sequences were well done despite the sloppy direction. And that aerial chase-what was THAT all about? Not to mention the funny in-your-face action camera work where it was difficult to make out exactly what was happening. (Come back Martin Campbell!) The excellent Jeffery Wright (Felix Leiter) was reduced to a virtual cameo appearance. Nice to see Rene Mathis back again only to be let down by a script that made virtually no sense in parts. Not much originality either-shades of Goldfinger, Licence To Kill and a few others for good measure. Hard to imagine Paul Haggis being involved in this script at all. Not that bad but ultimately disappointing I'm afraid. 6/10
7/10
Enjoyable yet annoying as well.
The world famous spy returns yet again in this fast-paced and more cold-blooded than usual fare. Picking up right after "Casino Royale" left, Bond races away from assassins and soon finds himself on the heels of a business man who is most likely not all that he initially seems to be.

The plot here is fairly interesting and it is more believable than many previous Bond entries, it feels less comic bookish, much like "Casino Royale," and one can almost imagine a group like QUANTUM existing. They operate via shadowy business dealings, use doublespeak during public functions and largely hide in plain site... it is quite the enemy organization for Bond to take on; a secret meeting during an opera performance is one of cleverest bad guy moves and, of course, Bond is there to screw it all up in his signature recklessly calculating fashion. Many of the previous Bond villains also were in the vain of QUANTUM, but they lacked a certain edge, or maybe it was the previous films themselves lacked the rough edge of these last two Bond films. They were still largely enjoyable, but this gritty approach Bond sure works well. Bond's dark and very dry humor is also in top form here.

That is not to say that "Quantum of Solace" is without disappointment and it is a rather ironic and heavily irksome disappointment. "Casino Royale" started of with intriguing plot and that new style of gritty action, but then failed to match its initial action scenes for the climax and the love story essentially made a flying bullet of a thriller film hit a brick wall and shatter into nothing. "QoS" stays with its plot and there are many action scenes and each one is different than the last, which makes for a variable of thrills. However, that is also where the irk comes in. "Casino Royale" for the action that it had, was shot and edited very well, but this film, for reasons inexplicable, succumbed to the hyper-editing craze that seems to be dominating big action films today. From the first car chase to a boat chase to a plane chase and finally an exploding hotel and everything in between seems like it was put together by someone on amphetamines. There are plentiful quick cut close-ups that too often result in a blur. With the high budget and obviously awesome set ups for the action scenes, it is real shame that much of that isn't actually shown. Isn't that why people pay money to see a film like this? Slow motion is also heavily under used and would have very much helped those quick-cut close ups and reduce the blur factor.

To conclude, the plot is slight improvement over the previous entry as it remains consistent throughout, the film moves quickly and enjoyably; however, the action style is a downgrade from the previous entry, which, especially in the Miami airport scene, demonstrated what awesome action scenes are all about. --- 7/10

BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence
2/10
Only Danile and Dame Dench are watchable
reddust166 December 2008
Why in heavens name is it necessary to prop 3 million shots in one second? Bourne 2 and 3 were on the edge, Bond makes it top over in lightning speed. The effect is not watchable and boring. The action scenes are 500% over the top. And the other actors (the bad guy and the main Bondgirl) act if they have a chicken bone swallowed in. With some lesson my dog will perform better.

The only good thing about this film is the acting of dame Dench and Daniel Graig. They perform as it should be, the rest is a spool of celluloid. How is it possible that a movie that cost millions let people that can't act, take a major role in the film (the Bondgirl gives the title 'bad acting'a whole new dimension) I'll rather watch and oldie with the most anti Bond ever (Roger Moore)then see this one again. Casino Royale lifted the Bond franchise up, this one puts it back on its place. Mainly because of the action scenes played in overdrive this is one of the worst Bonds ever
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
awesome James bond movie.
kyle-mcdonald19 November 2008
I just got back from the movie and all I have to say is that this movie is awesome I mean as soon as the movie starts the action starts. This movie is not only great because of the action it also has a great storyline, The director Marc foster does a great job on this movie, The characters are all really great, It has a great villain and the actor who plays him does an excellent job at playing a bad guy. The actors are great just to name a couple Daniel Craig as James bond 007, and Judi dench as m, and Jeffery wright as Felix. It has lots of action in it and it looks very real. all the other special effects are also great. The other thing I really liked was the chase scenes they are very well done. so I am sure that you will not be disappointed with quantum of solace. So make sure that you rent or buy quantum of solace because it is awesome.

Overall score: ********* out of **********

****1/2 out of *****

The only thing i had wished they had done different was put the gunbarrel at the beginning instead of the end but other than that flaw less.
8/10
Good film, but want my Bond back next time, please...
cemk-29 December 2008
Quantum of Solace turned out to be above my expectations. It's a well-made film, mostly well-acted, the script wasn't as much a collection of stunts put together or a full-length product-placement exercise (as Tomorrow Never Dies was the worst ever example for both), and I quite began to like Daniel Craig as 007. It's also good to see how James Bond became James Bond that we knew and loved. The experiences beginning with his achieving double-0 status and ending with the sentence "I never left" showed how and why 007 is so insensitive and carefree at times, how he can happily run into trouble and kill on Her Majesty's secret service, how he chose to drink vodka-martini shaken, not stirred and so on.

However, I believe enough is enough. I want to see the gun-barrel opening credits at the beginning of the film and not in an uber-stylized manner at the end, I want to have less aesthetic concerns in all scenes, I want the Q Branch involved ("Now, pay attention, 007"), I want gadgets, I want to hear very distinctly the James Bond Theme at "Bond Moment" signature scenes, not at the end credits. I am a fan, I have all the films on DVD, and not having these in the films bother me. In Casino Royale, there was a concern about how Bond became a person whose name would mean something to anyone when he utters it; in this film, we saw many elements of his "later" persona shape up, however, I guess the third Craig film should be the one with the olden signature elements back in action, because 3 films in a row without the Bond Theme in key action scenes, Q Branch, or other Bond elements would mean a new generation of teens may grow up without knowing why Bond is that important, and I believe, I hope rather, the producers don't aim at that...
A James Bond movie for James Bond fans.
Otoboke31 October 2008
They say that old dogs can't learn new tricks, and although there are registers of people who are fine and dandy with their old pets and their old, familiar tricks (such audiences will be those who also disagree with the latest live action Indiana Jones and Star Wars features); for those who crave innovation, new ideas and refreshing scenery, the idea of revisiting something from a slightly different angle fails to get the senses aroused. The James Bond series has been with cinema goers for decades now, spawning movies well into the double digit territory, and yet despite having years to refine, adjust and possibly evolve, little has actually happened since Bond's first outing. Sure enough the explosions have gotten grander, the series has taken on a notoriously darker tone with each rendition, and our own sense of nostalgic comfort when going into a screen and watching the newest offering has grown with each release; yet despite all of this, the actual advancement that matters –that of story, continuity and characterisation- has often taken a back seat in all the high-speed car chases Bond finds himself in.

Quantum of Solace, the latest offering for Bond fanatics is everything that the series has so far established itself to be, offering all the action, cars, women and gadgets that one could expect. The biggest problem with this however is that it all feels rather inconsequential and perfunctory. This isn't necessarily Bond's greatest two hours; it's simply just another story. Following on directly from the box office hit Casino Royale, the story here is similar but far less dramatised than it was a couple of years ago. With a much larger focus on action, blood-thirsty revenge and getting rid of corrupt antagonists, Quantum of Solace is a high-octane, thrilling experience, and as such requires minimal input from the viewer. Such an alignment will be sure to please those looking for exactly that; another no-frills Bond story. If however, you are possibly seeking more; more character, more personality, more drama, then this isn't going to be the most thrilling of rides, in spite of all the bullets whizzing by your ears.

Nevertheless if action is your game then you'll certainly be at home here. With countless sequences which range from cars, boats, aeroplanes and rooftops, director Marc Forster takes Martin Campbell's sense of fast-paced, relentless and convoluted action and takes it up a level, delivering plenty of explosions and moments of sensory awe to take you aback. The problem here however is that despite Forster's unprecedented talent for crafting interesting, well sequenced sequences of action, he nevertheless can't find a way to transition in between these segments and the straighter forward, dramatic ones, leading to a disjointed feeling of repetitiveness inherent in the film's structure. Essentially consisting of ten minutes of dialogue followed by another ten of stunts throughout, Quantum of Solace certainly packs a punch, and moves at an entertaining pace, but you also get the feeling that too much is done here and in too little time; it's amusing sure, but it certainly isn't as engaging as it could be.

The movie's sense of progression as I have stated, is obviously stunted here; characterisation follows the same basic flow of the previous movie as Bond goes on his own path regardless of what M suggests, even to the point of being charged with murder. As far as character goes, this is nothing the most casual of watchers will be surprised with. If Quantum does one thing remotely correct in this department however it is in the latest villain of the series, Dominic Greene played by a smarmy Mathieu Amalric. While his character is notably underdeveloped and frustratingly cut off from his nemesis, Greene is nevertheless compelling enough to root against, and takes on a tone that sees him as a threat, but only because of his power. Amalric is picture perfect here, hitting all the right notes and pressing enough buttons to keep his character ominous without resorting to cheap cliché or caricature. Both he and Daniel Craig obviously steal the show, but what's disappointing is that they hardly get any time together. There is promise in their sense of conflict which inevitably boils out near the end, but a distinct lack of focus on their personal pasts, and an exploration of such hurts the final payoff; it's satisfying but doesn't resonate as much as it should.

Much like I reiterated throughout my review of the latest Saw movie however, whether or not you get the most out of Quantum of Solace or not solely rests upon whether you have enjoyed those that have come before. While this rendition of Bond is certainly a lot more willing to please the general audience than the Saw series, those who crave the action that comes along with the name should be pleased most with what is offered here. With a distinctive lack of development and momentum in terms of characterisation and story though, this latest instalment sees Bond get a little slower, despite all the running he does. For casual audiences this won't serve as much of a problem (this is popcorn material after all) but for those looking for a little bit more, I would suggest leaving such hopes at the door. Essentially a James Bond movie for James Bond fans, Quantum of Solace is simply another taste of a long-time favourite dish. With enough action, girls, corrupt villains, weapons, stunts, explosions and vehicles moving at tremendous speeds, James Bond is back, and he's still not taking any names; just don't expect him, or anyone else to open up… after all, he is a secret agent.

  • Written by Jamie Robert Ward (http://ww.invocus.net)
3/10
Poor movie
TKoote23 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm just back from Quantum of Solace and I just can't help feeling swindled.

The new Bond movie tries to hard to be a good action-movie, but the scenes are to shocky to follow and sometimes hard to believe. The opening is good with a spectacular chase along the Italian lakes, but the main problem immediately becomes clear; it's unbelievably hard to follow the scenes which are so shocky and far to hastily.

Then there's another problem; the story. Or better; the lack of it. I got the feeling that the writers' only target was to put as many action scenes in as many country's they could get. The villain, Dominic Green, handles in a business with is in touch with the time, but ridiculous and almost laughing.

And who's come up with that awful title-song? There are some good things though; the clandestine advertising from Ford is far less striking then in Casino Royale and Olga Kurylenko is in my point of view the star of the show. She gives a very good performance as the tormented Camille.

All in all this movie is very disappointing. It doesen't deliver as an action-movie, but it also doesen't deliver as Bond-movie. It falls right in between those two and is nothing more than a shamefull sequel of Casino Royale.
5/10
Too short; huge anti-climax
0w013 May 2020
This movie is the first movie in the whole Bond franchise that has no significant plot-holes, but it's also probably the weakest execution of any plot so far...

I spotted only two plot-holes in the movie, but they were so minor that I won't even bring them up... anyway, the plot/story is interesting, but it falls down flat due to the fact that they never allow the bad-guy enough time to actually execute his master plan... the movie could have easily been 30-45minutes longer, which would have allowed for adequate time to more thoroughly build the arc for the bad-guy.

Unfortunately the bad-guy's plan never comes anywhere close to fruition, and Bond spends half of the movie chasing after a girl who he's never even met before. It would have been 7/10, if only it was longer.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
pretty good B-movie
winner5514 December 2008
To read through the reviews here, this film appears to have entered "love it or hate it" territory, and that doesn't make sense. While this film is not as good as Casino Royale, it's still a good action film in the contemporary espionage genre.

Dispelling one common complaint: Some critics remark that that the editing in the action sequences borrows too much from Hong Kong or even MTV. That's not true. The editing style chosen for this film is a taken from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," complete with sudden close-ups and reflections from metal surfaces. Related Complaint: Too much/too little action. Actually the issue is overall pacing; Foster determined to keep the pace moving from one scene to another rapidly, not allowing for any moments of leisure or reflection. When there is so much action, any one action set-piece loses some of it's thrill, since it's no longer unexpected.

Common Complaint 2: The plot is shot with holes. This is not entirely true, though understandable. What has actually happened is that the script underplays the plot and director Foster hasn't come up with a visually striking way to emphasize the plot elements so underplayed.

Common Complaint 3: There's no humor to this Bond (for instance, no Bond quips). Actually there is, but Daniel Craig makes no effort to draw attention to it, usually speaking his 'quip' lines in a natural tone of voice, i.e., without the emphasis previous Bonds brought to them. Related Complaint: Too serious! Maybe, but the producers realized that Casino Royale left some issues to be resolved before they can open up the character to innovation that could make it more 'light-hearted.'

Common complaint 4: There are no Bond gadgets in this film. True; however, the repeated insertions in the film of the computer programs used by the British Secret Service tell us why - the era of the 'Bond gadget' (despite micro-technology still 'hardware') was late industrialism, such innovations would leave little impression in the AI/software era of our day.

Complaints aside, this is a pretty good B-movie, and it is certainly a James Bond movie - the core of the Bond legend has been re-interpreted for the 21st Century, but remains intact. The camera work is excellent, and there are moments that may unsettle some (like the opera sequence) but that still add to the substance of the film; and although the plot is a bit muddled, Foster and company have really made the film about Bond and so preserve an inner sense of continuity. Frankly, after Casino Royale, I'm not sure where else they could have gone. The next film will be the one that determines the future for this franchise.
8/10
Good screenplay, atrociously filmed
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Were it not for the admittedly awful cinematography and horrible editing, I think this would be unanimously considered one of the best Bond films ever made. Darker and probably the grittiest Bond ever, yet it also has a sense of humour (Elvis' black neck brace always amuses me, as does Bond's line "I can't find the ... stationary. Would you come help me look for it?" as an excuse to get Agent Fields into the bedroom/ shower area)

Screenplay also has great depth to the characters, as Bond and Mathis appear to genuinely become friends, after amusingly resolving the enmity between then by the end of the previous film, which only makes Mathis' death in Bond's arms all the more sad and tragic "We forgive each other", but is Mathis asking Bond, or telling him? Bond then appears to heartlessly steal the money from Mathis' wallet and leave him in a dumpster- to conceal Mathis' death, and make it look like a robbery .

There also appears to be more of a bond (pardon the pun) between Bond and Camille, who is strong, and a fighter, not just along for the ride, like some previous Bond Girls.

Great action sequences in the film: the opening car chase/ shootout, boat chases, the climactic explosions, but sadly, they seem to have been filmed by cameramen in the middle of an Epileptic seizure. I also like that immediately following the boat chase, the sound slowly becomes muted, near silence, giving the audience a chance to breathe after the chase. Similarly, and another favourite moment of mine, after Bond has "interrupted" Quantum's meeting during the opera, when he and Greene stare each other down in silence, the expression on Greene's face is marvelous. Is he terrified of this unknown discovering his activities, or is he enraged, wishing to violently kill this unknown man as quickly as possible? Bond's own expression spoke volumes without saying a word as well: "I'm closing in you, and I know that you know I'm closing in on you, and I'm not going to stop", while Bond exchanges gunfire with Greene's men, in complete silence, with the opera slowly brought up into the mix, again gives the audience a chance to breathe.

Also unique is that Bond let's the villain, Greene, go free at the end- granted, Bond leaves him 100 miles into the desert, with no food or water (which is what Greene was after) and knowing Quantum would hunt Greene down, even in the middle of the desert, and kill him, as they would now regard Greene as a security risk.

The final scene, with Bond, calmly yet intensely confronting Vesper's ex-lover and his new girl/assignment, completely blowing his cover, fully exposing his lies, in a loose adaptation of Fleming's short story 007 In New York, gave the film a good, cyclical ending, feeling like this Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace screenstory had come full circle. Bond's final words to M., followed by walking away, leaving Vesper's necklace in the snow, had a wonderful Hitchcock feel to it.
9/10
The best of Daniel Greg as James Bond
jacobjohntaylor113 July 2014
This part 22 to James Bond movie. It is better the Casino r.o.y.a.l.e (2006) staring Daniel Greg. That was still a great movie. But not as good as this one. The was a lot better them that 1967 pile of pooh. Casino r.o.y.a.l.e staring David N.i.v.e.n. That was just a big stinky pile of pooh. This is the beast James Bond movie staring Daniel Greg. There are better James Bond movies like Die another. Tomorrow never dies is also better. The world is not enough is also better. But still this is a great movie. It has great acting. It had a great story line. All the Bond girls are good actresses. Olga K.u.r.y.l.e.n.k.o is one of the prettiest Bond girls. See this movie it is great.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Daniel Craig continues to deliver!!!
stallone-915 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The guy just has what it takes to be a kick ass Bond and he continues to prove it in this film.After the excellent Casino Royale we get another excellent performance by our boy Craig who really seems to enjoy the role.The action begins in the first seconds as we get an extremely intense car chase in Italy(further into the film we also get boat and plane chases which are both fantastic)which stands up to the ones form the Bourne trilogy.The camera work is excellent and we can feel the intensity right away.The pacing is real fast and the film barely slows itself up.The twists and turns are plenty and it really makes the story that much more interesting.Unlike all the other Bond films this is absolutely a revenge flick as Bond tries to solve the mystery around Vesper's death and with each minute he gets closer.The fight sequences and choreography are superb!!!However one can't help but find similarities in Bond,Jason Bourne and Bryan's(from Taken)fighting styles.The first fight sequence is the best one by far.Bond fights M's bodyguard turned traitor Mitchell.The two fight on a rooftop and the fight ends on a platform in an abandoned building with a kick ass finish.I'm glad that M and Bond's mother-son relationship is further explored and there are both tension and respect between the two.The film also delivers one of the best Bond babes ever!!!Olga Kurylenko is absolutely beautiful and has the right attitude.She isn't a damsel in distress but a serious ass kicking babe.She and Sophie Marceau from TWINE are my two favorite Bond girls ever.What is interesting is that Bond and Camille have an entirely different relationship from what most would expect.See the film and you'll know what I mean.One more thing that really helps the movie is the great humor and funny scenes throughout which will definitely make you at least giggle.There is a hilarious scene in which one of Dominic Green's men asks Bond why didn't he kill Camille and Bond says:"Looks like I missed" and punches the guy off his bike in a hilarious way.The film of course has its weaknesses.Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene wasn't a particularly interesting villain and not at all menacing,the film was also too short and 20 minutes could have been added for more character development(or action sequences).My last complaint is pretty much my opinion cause others may like the direction they took with Bond here.He is no longer a silent and finesse as portrayed in all the other films.Now he's a killing machine,a tank who blows his cover and kills for laughs.Maybe Graig is a bit too hardcore but I'm sure he'll get closer to the classic Sean Connery portrayal in future films.I'm also looking forward to seeing Q and all the cool gadgets he will equip Bond with.Overall I'm giving the film 8.5/10 but I'll probably love it even more in the future.And most importantly don't listen to the so called critics,go and expect a great action film for the new generation.
1/10
James Bourne
simonwoodca200416 April 2009
Absolutely dire.

The franchise has outstayed its welcome. Terrible credits and title-song, too much plot, no "Bond moments", no humor, MTV editing instead of direction; dull, plodding villains, and stylized location credits which kept popping up in every font under the sun.

The whole thing was like amateur night out. Daniel Craig is physically fine as Bond, but he has been lumbered with poor dialog and a dark psychology which has no place in this sort of movie. It didn't work with George Lazenby when Mrs Bond got popped in OHMSS and it didn't work here.

For the next Bond movie please find a director and script writer who understand the finer moments of the franchise. Otherwise, just let it die a peaceful death.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
In retrospect a better film, but still lacking
Fluke_Skywalker30 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Coming on the heels of Casino Royale, the best Bond film ever in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), the bar for Quantum of Solace was quite high. And in 2008 Daniel Craig's sophomore effort seemed to limbo right under it.

But distance gives us perspective, and revisiting QoS a decade and change later has given me a new appreciation for its merits, and perhaps some more tolerance of its faults. What I remembered as a slight, if kinetic, mess now plays more as a slight, yet lean, story; Though one that feels as if it doesn't stand on its own. There's a lot of overlap with Casino Royale, but it doesn't take those seeds, plant them and watch them blossom so much as it puts them in its pocket.

In many ways, this doesn't feel like a complete film so much as a bridge. Not a Daniel Craig Bond part 2, but a Daniel Craig Bond part 1.5. I think viewed through that lens it plays fairly well. It's far more satisfying as a snack than a meal.
4/10
Underwhelming experience
PMM123512 December 2008
Wife is a big fan of Craig, and I am a big fan of Bond movies. So we went.

Nowhere near Casino Royale. Story is confusing, plot meanders. What I hated most was the photography. So shaky, doesn't focus on anything. I think the shaking is attempt at covering poor photography skills.

I liked the villain's acting, but his motives were unclear/flimsy. Stunts were all unbelievable and insane. Almost all characters are lame. None of them believable, especially the heroine. Her interaction with Bond is so confusing that she seems forced in to the story, probably for sex appeal.

Seriously, do not waste your money. Watch it when it's on discount rental at local video store.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Best to catch up with Casino Royale first.
specialbobby2 November 2008
A piece of advice: Before watching Quantum of Solace watch Casino Royal again if you can, It'll make for a better experience.

I hadn't watched Craigs first stab at bond for at least a year but wish I had done because this film jumps straight into the thick of things with an awesome car chase to the beautiful town of Siena with a load of previous plot detail on board and rather than spending a few minutes trying to fill yourself in you can just enjoy the ride.

Must say though that this is a great movie, Daniel Craig is the master when it comes to Bond, he fits the role perfectly and his face can tell a thousand tales. The film is faster paced and more Bourne like than casino and doesn't suffer for it with some great cinematography and sound editing pulling you write into the action, with a real globe trot of action sequences, my favourite of which is at an amazing opera house in Austria. The cast does a good job though Gemma Atterton is really just a token bond girl but i guess it was set up that way.

Marc Fosters done a worthy job on this movie, it left me buzzing a lot more than Indy 4 did after leaving the theatre and had it given me a greater emotional tug with it's story like The Dark Knight did rather than being a lean Cray bang wallop movie it would be the action movie of the year no doubt, Bourne 4 needs to pull it's socks right up because i can't for 007's return.
4/10
It's Bond-filler. And That's It.
I can't remember Quantum of Solace; it's quite easily the most forgettable Bond movie in my opinion. There's not a moment that sticks out in your memory besides perhaps the opening car- chase. I can't remember the villain, I can't remember the Bond-girl, and I can't even remember what the basic plot of the movie was. In Skyfall you could recount that it was a movie that explored James' past as well as M's; and that MI6 had a lot to hide. Casino Royale: Bond has to go head-to- head with Le Chiffre in gambling and cease his funding to terrorist organisations. Quantum of Solace: something something baddies in desert?

There's flashy action sequences but the story is totally unremarkable and Daniel Craig is the only consistently uplifting factor in this movie. But even he is bogged down by the movie's sheer ineptitude to tell a memorable story at all.

Quantum of Solace: the day James Bond made me go to sleep.
3/10
The Bond Identity
pyroteq20 November 2008
This isn't a Bond film.

No Q No Money Penny No gadgets No super car that shoots rockets, lasers, etc No cheesy puns or one liners

If this wasn't a Bond film I might have enjoyed it more, but I went into the cinema expecting to watch everyone's favourite British super spy seduce hot Bond babes, deliver some corny one liners after killing nameless henchmen, save the world and at the very least deliver his classic "Bond, James Bond" line.

This is an entertaining action flick, but it has absolutely nothing in common with the classic Bond films.

The opening title song is easily the worst ever, it's like a cross between rap and a kitten being thrown into a blender. The story is too dark and gritty and the movie takes it self far too seriously.

The direction was really bad in nearly all the action scenes. I can't see WTF is happening when you make 5 cuts in 1 second, seriously, hold the damn camera still so I can see what's happening and who's fighting who. There was one stage where Bond is fighting some guy and I lost track of who was who and couldn't even tell who was punching who until the fight ended.
5/10
quantum of the worst bond movie ever!
johnson-steve-sj3 November 2008
no q,no money-penny,no gadgets,no one liners,no humour. it did'nt even have that"bond feel".

i was excited with the opening car chase. it had bond all over it but no gunbarell opening. what happened to tradition? the shortest bond movie ever(bond movies a normally 2 hours plus)again,what happen to tradition?

one chase after another,the roof top chase was good but seen it all before,it just felt like an average action movie,not like a bond move at all.

poor judi dench,a quality actress appearing in this mess and it was a mess.

i wanted the move to finish a.s.a.p. the most expensive bond movie ever and i did'nt see that $200m plus on screen.i was embarrassed watching the movie and as for the director,why was he hired? big mistake!

do me a favour?someone please pull this so called "bond movie" from our cinema screens,save this movie from further mauling because thats what it will get.

am really sorry to report and i did'nt want to give this film this title but its the worst bond movie ever and this is coming from a bond fan.

now am going to settle down and watch 2 quality bond movies. "thunderball" and "moonraker" to help me forget about the quantum of nonsense.

Steven Johnson
7/10
Craig Stars as Film Dwindles
blackburnj-19 November 2008
The massive success of "Casino Royale" created a weight of expectation on "Quantum of Solace" which was always going to be hard to live up to. The gritty and intense redesign of the Bond franchise, with the excellent Daniel Craig in the lead, gave rise to these great hopes and the signs were, on the whole, good. Nevertheless, one cannot help but be disappointed by Bond's latest outing, though it is by no means a disaster and still worth going to see.

"Quantum of Solace" is a film of two halves in many ways and it seems necessary to separate the good from the bad. Starting with the good, we have Daniel Craig continuing his fine work with the role. When the film comes to its end there can be no doubt that Craig is a man of awesome talent and the best Bond since Connery, if not the best. He is ably supported by the cast which includes brilliant turns from Olga Kurylenko (as the tough and interesting Camille), Giancarlo Giannini (reprising his role as Mathis) and Judi Dench (ever-excellent as M).

Then, there is the style of the film. One sequence, set around an Opera, is wonderful to watch and quite entrancing to look at. Other moments are also terrifically intense, whilst David Arnold provides an exemplary score to accompany the often impressive images.

Also, there is a continuation of the plot from "Casino Royale" which is not perhaps as heavily explored as it should be but still provides the film with its finest moment as it reaches its denouement. All of which bodes well for Craig's third outing, but cannot make up for some of this film's failings.

Most of the problems lie in the script which, whilst dryly funny and not without merit, has a plot (the one specific to this film) which is dull and overly reliant on action sequences. Poor Mathieu Almaric, who is his usual excellent self in this film, is lumbered with one of the most boring Bond villains in history and the central plot, though realistic and relevant, is hardly the most entertaining of ideas. A sign of its weakness is that, although this is the shortest Bond film on record, it feels long.

Furthermore, Bond's character development through the film is sporadic, and, for a film which relies so heavily on action, it does a lot of the chase and fight scenes really badly. It is often difficult to tell what's going on during the sequences and sometimes they are horrendously overlong. Marc Forster, who is often a great character filmmaker, is pretty much out of his depth here.

The film was badly affected by the writer's strike and there was not really an opportunity for it to be given the amount of work it deserved. Yes it is a disappointment, but it is not a regrettable experience or a disaster. It has its moments. The overwhelming experience is of a missed opportunity. This could have been so much more. Go and see it for Craig's performance, and in preparation for the next film which, with the greater amount of time available to the producers and writers, promises to be better.

3(1/2) stars out of 5
8/10
Another Brilliant Daniel Craig Bond.........
jagdevs-113 November 2008
Fast Cars! Non stop action and plenty of globe trotting with Daniel Craig as bond! what could be better? I hadn't read any reviews or heard the theme song etc. before the movie so I went in with an open and unbiased mind and thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Though some bond fans may differ! The story is very fast paced for a bond and gadgets are not really existent apart from the Sony phones, computers etc. I've never seen bond with so many cuts and bruises!!!(very realistic!). This movie does loose out on getting a perfect 10 due to the lack of certain bond trademarks. 1- The famous gun barrel intro was pushed to the end of the movie. 2- No formal introduction "My name is Bond, James Bond" But then again. this film is more about the making of James Bond(his turning into the Jame Bond we know and love so much, The Man of Wine, Women and Wonder. A good film, but we still want to see the classic Bond trademarks.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
These carping critics need to do their goose steps elsewhere
socrates9917 November 2008
Can't believe how people are dumping on this reframing of the Bond legend. You'd think arrogant exceptionalism had seen its day, like the adolescent preoccupation with gadgets which I wouldn't have wanted to sit through again even for a night with the beautiful Olga Kurylenko.

So what have we got here instead? Some thinly veiled jabs at the way foreign policy has been mishandled over the last 8 years, at least. Surely you boneheads realize the US has been pretty happy to see the takeover of water utilities in South America with the result that prices have skyrocketed for people who can barely afford food? And the idea that we're quite willing to see foreign (usually non-white) populations suffer under a dictator as long as we're better off, has hardly been a state secret over the years.

Though the script tends to fudge a bit by throwing in the revenge factor, at least, for once, Bond is clearly on the side of the downtrodden. In fact he's in direct conflict with a group of well connected financial manipulators, quite intent on squeezing all the profit they can out of the less developed world. To see Bond take on these poseurs was worth the price of admission.

Do I miss Bond the connoisseur? No. In fact, I much prefer someone who gets it on regardless, and who couldn't care less whether his martinis are shaken or stirred. The fight scenes are quite good and when someone gets killed, he looks dead, for a change. No, this isn't a Bond for those who've never ventured far without their parent's help. This is a Bond for those who've taken a risk now and then as a fiercely independent man, far too proud to have been compromised already.

No, Daniel Craig may yet become my favorite Bond. He's taking the franchise away from fantasy, and I don't doubt that means he'll lose some fans, but he's going to gain a lot of respect instead, from men especially. It's funny how all the previous Bonds never had the guts to do the same.
4/10
very disappointing
Ajtlawyer29 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really like Daniel Craig as James Bond; I think he has the look, the ruthlessness and the charisma for the role. But "Quantum of Solace" is a total mess. If you haven't seen "Casino Royale" you'll have a hard time following "Quantum" and even if you have seen it, you'll have a hard time following "Quantum". The story I thought was totally incoherent. Mostly it seemed to just be an exercise in putting together some chase and fight scenes. And they did nearly all of them---a car chase, a foot chase, a boat chase, an airplane chase (just about everything except chases on bicycles and spacecraft). Fight scenes? Gunfights, fist fights, martial arts, knife fights. . .

I know the filmmakers are trying to go on an entirely new take with Bond but "Quantum" is indistinguishable from the Bourne series. Bourne is fine and I like them, but I expect something different from Bond and I didn't get it in this movie.

Also, did I miss this or am I mistaken? At one point Bond is helped by "Ms. Fields" a British Embassy staffer in Bolivia. She is asked several times by Bond what her first name is and she refuses to tell him. She eventually is bedded by Bond and then killed in a way that is a total rip-off of the killing of Jill Masters in "Goldfinger." That's okay, I suppose, but why the coyness about her first name which is never stated in the movie (if it was, I didn't hear it). The mystery was unraveled in the credits when her name is given as "Strawberry Fields". A rather lame joke I suppose using a Beatles song but it would've been okay HAD HER NAME ACTUALLY BEEN SAID IN THE MOVIE!!! There's no question Bond would've had at least one quip about her name being a Beatles title but as far as I could tell, there were none. So why call her "Strawberry Fields" in the credits? Why not "Mildred Fields" or "Harriet Fields"? It's just an example of how this movie falls short.
6/10
What happened?
gtinvegas9 December 2008
Did the producers fall asleep? QoS has good moments and is worth a view, but it fails to build on any of the momentum that CR established.

1.There is very little humor, something CR had and Bond is famous for. They failed to develop this.

2. In fact, the producers failed to bring in any of Bond's trademarks. There is some emotional character development, but they fail to adequately develop anything 007 ish. This could have been any lame action movie if you did not know the character was named Bond.

3. The story is non existent. The villain is weak. Who is the evil organization? Nothing happens with the Mr White scenario. We never find out anything. No resolution.

4. Last but most importantly, If you have a blockbuster and a good formula, Don't mess with it if it is not broken. Mark Forster's direction was terrible and the editing too. Why change directors and styles after you have a blockbuster that establishes those very things? CR set itself apart from all other action movies and even Bond movies. This director reversed all of that.

The one real redeeming asset of this movie is that Craig is very good, (again). True the writing and story should have been better. But in the end, it is the director who tore up this movie. It would have been much better without Forster. What were the producers thinking in picking this guy? Look at his career. Why would anyone pick this guy to direct an action movie as prestigious as a Bond movie? A true head scratcher.
6/10
ARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! Michael Bay lives!!!!
ukkoparis7 November 2008
I'm a huge Bond fan but I was so disappointed especially after Casino Royale. Bond is known for the action sequences. But they were incomprehensible!!!!!! Totally ruined by the inept editing! What were they thinking??? I know that it's heavily influenced by Bourne - and even has one of the Bourne editors, but Paul Greengrass kept his films on track - his action scenes made sense. They worked. These don't and that's a great shame because you can see that they are terrifically staged.

There are blogs going round that QoS wasn't directed by cool indie director Marc Forster but by Michael Bay ;)

http://volume124.wordpress.com/
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Outliar Bond Movie
scfiftyfive2 June 2012
This is my first review so bear with me, but I've got a few things that need to be said about this movie.

This is without a doubt, one of the worst James Bond movies produced. It stands out no further than the average modern action film with drawn out fighting and car chase scenes.

The reoccurring annoyance with this film that made it nearly unbearable to watch was the constant scene/camera angle changes during any given portion of the film. Some action scenes had camera angles that would alternate every half second or less and they would be either extreme close-up shots or distal.

The plot line was also to be desired as it was dreary and had what seemed to be weak basis of story; it was a very generic action flick with a weak ending. This was a disappointment as Casino Royale and other previous films in the franchise were fantastic and weren't a general shoot 'em up action flick. I like to purchase every Bond film on DVD after release, but this one isn't ever worth seeing again. I like to imagine as though it wasn't part of this movie series.
6/10
I rather liked it.
mgl-920375 December 2021
The cinematography or CGI in the action scenes had problems; otherwise I felt this was a good effort Quantum is much better than the atrocious Skyfall , with it's convoluted plot and overcooked villain. I quite enjoyed the location shooting in Quantum. Green was a good villain. For me this film is in the middle of the pack for Bond films.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Like flat champagne.
NewTypeTanuki17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm a longtime fan of Bond but QOS has got to be one of the limpest Bond films ever. I'm a fan of the original Bond format. But I always try to be open minded about the new flicks. I understood they wanted a new grittier format and I went along with that. I really like Daniel Craig as Bond and the characterization of Bond as a spy that isn't indestructible and is driven by complex motives is an interesting move. I liked Casino Royale(the first half anyway, the ending put me to sleep) and thought that QOS would be a big improvement because all the introductions were out of the way and the new franchise could really take off. But QOS didn't have nearly as much action as I thought it would. You figured that they would really open up the throttle on the action but the action sequences didn't blow my mind at all(during one of the sequences I actually fell asleep). I liked the introduction of a new shadowy organization, Quantum, but it was sort of just gleaned upon rather than featured. As a revenge flick it scored even lower for me. After all the set up, Bond's final revenge was weak sauce. There was no catharsis. My other gripe (as with CR) is that Sony's choice to product place the heck out of the film was just tacky. I get that Sony produced it, but still it was just overkill. And all the little "required" nods to the old Bond format were just lame and annoying. I say if you're really going to bring a franchise into a new direction, leave all the old stuff behind and just do the new stuff. I'll always be a fan of the older stuff even though they were a parody of themselves because most of the time they were just more fun to watch. But I do hope the next movie is better.
7/10
Unclear story
hassanlu25 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Story was complicated and many thing is not well explained You think mathias is traitor then you discover he is innocent And all stuff about organization wasnt clear The movie just start showin bond fighting with people and escaping from him and car chasing,,, the movie should be cleared more is complicated for nothing
7/10
Still good but rather a lack to it's predecessor
Seraphion7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After introducing a new formula in the first Daniel Craig Bond movie in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace reverts back to the old formula of centering on the hunt to bring down a world class villain and thwart his plans. But the movie did quite a good job in grounding the story; the villain's scope gets to be local or regional instead of the usual straight shot at world domination. The early emphasis on the secret organization also makes for a good thread between the Daniel Craig Bond series. Yet I feel that the action quality rather decreases, due to the increase use of mid range shots and close ups. The acting overall sees a polarized view as Daniel Craig maintains his performance as James Bond but Olga Kurylenko looks awfully silly as Bond's sidekick in this movie. Gemma Arteton is plainly underutilized while Judi Dench did great in retaining her character for the role of M.
5/10
The Worst Bond Film, In My Opinion
henry-robins4 June 2012
first of all, i have to point out that out of all 22 bond films, this was the only one that i did not like, for several reasons. This movie was so badly directed that during the action scenes you would have no idea what was going on sometimes with the flash editing, and it is pretty bad to not include the gun-barrel opening at the beginning of a bond movie, with the exception of Casino Royale, which was a very good film I thought. The story isn't bad but it's pretty small and weak, I did not think that the women or villains in this movie were at all memorable, and the conclusion to the film is disappointing. When i went to see this in theaters opening day I was just thinking the whole time: "This is not a Bond movie!" It doesn't have the feel, charm, or character of the James Bond series, I think. I would mention however that this film is not at all terrible, and is entertaining and good to watch if your looking for any regular, popcorn thriller, I just think if your a fan of the James Bond series, you will find this one a bit frustrating to watch. All i can say is that i find this my least favorite of the bond movies and that I am hoping Skyfall will be better that ever.
9/10
Marc Forster's "Quantum Of Solace" Is An Excellent Action Film And My Favorite Bond Thus Far.
derekdiercksmeier7 November 2012
Daniel Craig Is A Wonderful Actor, Which Makes Him An Excellent James Bond. Many Agree That Craig Is The Best Bond In The History Of The Franchise. I Enjoyed "Quantum Of Solace" Even More Than "Casino Royale" And Thought That It Was Unfairly Maligned By Critics At The Time Of It's Release. The Action In This Film Is Relentless And Riveting. It Accomplishes Exactly What An Action Film Should. The Extraordinary Olga Kurylenko Stars As Camille Montes, The Bond Girl. Olga Kurylenko Is My Absolute Favorite Bond Girl Ever. She Is Smart, Dangerous, And Incredibly Sexy. The Film's Story Is Very Engaging And The Action Is Outstanding. Judi Dench Is Stellar As M. "Quantum Of Solace" Improves On Everything That Made "Casino Royale" An International Hit. Marc Forster Is A Very Talent Director And One That Would Like To See Direct Another Bond Film."Quantum Of Solace" Is An Exhilarating Film That Breathes New Life Into The Legacy Of James Bond.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not as good as I hoped...
pugdaddyd4 April 2009
First, let me start by saying that I have watched each of the James Bond movies that have come out during my years (not backtracking to the older B/W movies - essentially the Sean Connery years forward), and I've never been all that impressed with any of them. So take from that what you will.

This movie is a solid action flick. Fantastic shoot-outs, chases, and fight scenes are well placed and make the pace of the movie very quick. However, the story, I feel, is weak. And I've felt that way about each of the Bond movies. It's convoluted and overtly complicated to the point where trying to be witty and smart but ends up becoming confusing and pointless. After a while I stopped bothering to try and follow the storyline in favor of just watching what turned out to be an excellent, mindless - yet extremely exciting - action flick.

So that's my 2 cents, and it comes from someone that really enjoys a cleverly done story with excellent character development over pretty much anything else. Do with it what you will!
2/10
Not a Bond movie
t-shtatland22 November 2008
This is a generic action movie, and not a remarkable one. The features that I expect of a James Bond movie are mostly gone in this film. After watching Quantum of Solace, I had to come home and watch half an hour of an old Bond flick, The Spy Who Loved Me, just to get the bland taste out of my mouth.

Quantum of Solace Pros:

  • credible Bad Guy and Bond Girl.


  • tolerable story.


Quantum of Solace Cons:

  • Bond is not cool. Craig delivers an intense, personally motivated Bond, in the tradition of Dalton and Lazenby (the Wrong Way to play Bond). Where is the coolness of Connery, Moore and Brosnan? Craig looks too serious.


  • Practically no jokes or quips. Everyone is so damn serious! Since when has Bond (a flat, almost comic book-type genre) become a drama?


  • No gadgets, no Q, no Moneypenny, no Bond Theme, no gun barrel - the list of offenses just goes on and on. What is the difference between Bond and any other action movie? The same trademark erosion happened to Die Hard in Die Hard 4, but that's a whole other story.


  • Inappropriate editing. The cuts are way too fast. Can we just watch a *single* fight in one straight cut? Please do not edit for me a feature length movie like an MTV clip or a commercial. Especially not Bond, which has a tradition of many real stunts. Just show me what you have without pulverizing the footage.


  • Bond plot layout is disregarded. A Bond movie is expected to end with the spectacular destruction of the Bad Guy's very elaborate compound. After that, James Bond and the girl get under the radar of MI6 and everyone else, and have sex. And what do we get? The destruction was not spectacular, the compound was not elaborate, Bond showed up with M (rather than disappear), and (the final insult!) merely kissed the girl. The film ends with yet another touching, personal story. Where are all the expected clichés? No, this is not what is expected of a Bond movie.


Overall, like Casino Royale, the movie is a disappointment.
7/10
A few things missing, but overall a good entry to the series.
theshadow90821 November 2008
In this direct follow up to Casino Royale, British secret agent James Bond embarks on a mission to take down the mysterious organization that Le Chiffre was working for, and also blackmailed Vesper Lynd into betraying Bond. Bond's new target is Dominic Greene, a proclaimed environmentalist with a crooked plan to buy up Bolivia's water supply before staging a coup d'etat. Bond maintains that he is simply fulfilling his duty, but M knows that he is acting purely out of vengeance for Vesper's death. Quantum of Solace is an action packed film, and definitely an enjoyable watch. It succeeds in taking James Bond in an entirely new direction, however there are certain things missing that could have made it that much better.

Despite what some movie critics and classic Bond purists will tell you, this is a very good James Bond film. Casino Royale was a reboot, and in rebooting the franchise, the makers of these films are trying to take the series in a new and more refreshing direction. Daniel Craig's James Bond is the coldest, most ruthless killing machine on the British secret service, just as he is described in Ian Fleming's novels. However, despite seeming almost robotic when he's doing what he needs to do, Daniel Craig is able to play Bond's more human side as well. Action scenes aren't so easy for Bond to get through anymore. He can miss his mark when he's making a jump, he can slip and fall, he can get hurt. What makes it better is that when he gets up and keeps going, you can see that he's in pain but he's fighting past it. He's also more human on an emotional level. There is a scene where he's sitting at a bar, drunk out of his mind, and staring at a picture of Vesper with a look of absolute heartbreak on his face. I think this is the most distraught I've seen Bond over a woman's death since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I enjoyed how Bond made his way through this entire film without having to use any sort of special gadget. While Bond's gadgets are a trademark, I think this new take on the series is trying more for a sense of realism. I also think it makes James Bond seem much more capable when he's using his own strength and intelligence to get out of situations. I also enjoyed Dominic Greene, the main villain of this film. He was unlike any main villain I've seen in a James Bond film before. He was a small, meek looking man that only had his power to wield as a weapon, unlike most of the villains who appear menacing due to some trait like being mountainous in size, having a vicious scar or a bleeding eye. When he finally has to fight Bond, he is actually terrified out of his wits, blindly swinging an axe praying that he will hit Bond before Bond hits him, because he knows if that happens he'll be done for.

Now, as I said, this is in no way a bad James Bond film. It's taking the series in a great new direction. However, as a fan of the series overall, there are some things that I missed that I think should make a return. First of all, missing characters. While I don't feel it's completely necessary to bring Q back just yet, I think the famous M's secretary Miss Moneypenny should make a return soon. The scenes between Moneypenny and Bond are always a small highlight to the films, just to see how many smooth and flattering ways Bond can reject this poor woman. Secondly, while I do think that James Bond should be a more serious character than he has been in the past, I don't think it's necessary for his humour to disappear completely. I think the odd pun or one liner should be allowed to pop up here and there, and Quantum was completely devoid. The third problem I had with the film was that it seemed far too rushed, and the story wasn't all that fleshed out. I felt like this film was serving as filler material until the next film in the series when Bond will undoubtedly take the evil organization down. Also, I want the series to return to the format where each movie is disconnected from the last. And finally just a few nitpicks. The gun barrel sequence needs to be at the beginning of the movie. I felt like it was put at the end only to be different. Also, though the opening credits sequence was classic James Bond, the song could have been much better.

7/10
6/10
My eyes hurt
koobs15 November 2008
While the story is intriguing and Craig presents another convincing performance as Bond, what was this director thinking? Does he not have any control over his film editor? What a brutal job of film editing and special effects during the fight scenes and the chase scenes.

The sound needs some work too. At first I thought it was the theatre speakers that were making it hard to hear the actors speak but the music and sound effects were loud enough. My wife and I both had to strain to hear what was being said. I heard other patrons commenting on this too... a lot of 'what did he say's.

With a different director, this could have been up there as one of the best Bond pics. I'll have to score it a 5 out of 10 (and that is being generous).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond is back but the 007 is weak in this one
matjusm7 November 2008
James Bond returns wearing camouflage, and perhaps a little too much of it.

The story continues from where Casino Royale left off. Bond is out to get revenge on those who brought about the death of love. At the same time he uncovers a secret organization and its sinister plans and all of these things are tied together.

Unlike previous films, this one heavily emphasizes Bond as a person, his feelings and emotions. No longer is he a word traveling, womanizing superhero but someone more down to earth, someone who feels. Although this is good from certain point of view, giving the character a bit more depth and making him somewhat more realistic, it isn't quite the classic Bond we have grown to love and admire over the years. Bond has also seemingly misplaced his sense of humor. Where did it go? Unlike most of the previous films, Bond's mission in this one isn't as clear as it used to be. There is no concrete checklist of things he has to accomplish. Instead things are much more vague and ambiguous. The opening scene, although nicely reminiscent of The Living Daylights at times, seems to come completely out of the blue giving little explanation as to why those things are going on. The classic "bad guy's scheme" is very classic-Bond and an extremely interesting one, combining modern issues with the best of what makes Bond what he is. Yet this detail seems to be underplayed and very little attention is given to it. It is treated as if it were little more than some minor side element.

On the technical side, the influence of films like the Bourne series is strong. Which isn't surprising because the two series now share the same second unit director (the guy who shoots the action scenes). The camera has been brought much closer to the action, a lot more use is made of hand-held or just generally shaky cameras and the editing is something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer production. Luckily on this film this style isn't as over the top annoying as it is in the Bourne ones but yet again, this is not representative of the Bond films I grew to love over the years. Same goes for the music- it is an excellent soundtrack, some really nice tunes in there, but it just isn't Bond. In fact the classic full orchestra Bond theme can't even be heard once during the entire film. All of these things by themselves aren't bad at all but the series has just gotten a little too far from its roots.

A good film definitely but it just doesn't feel quite what a Bond film should feel like.
8/10
Daniel Craig is perfect as Bond
s-price4769 April 2009
It was always going to be difficult to top Casino Royale and I think the producers always knew that. In QoS we're subjected to an immediate continuation to a story where Casino Royale ended. James Bond is a little fed up to say the least after the death of his lover, Vesper (Eva Green)so tries to infiltrate the organisation that were responsible for her betrayal of him. The action starts straight away and only briefly lets up at the end when it sets up the next movie, superbly. There is no great emotional characterisation, however the scenes between Daniel Craig and Dame Judy Dench are superb. Don't expect Casino 2-this is not like it. Brutal, ballsy and little humour, this is Bond how it should be. I look forward to the next instalment.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Worthy Sequel!
g-bodyl15 September 2010
This is only the second James Bond movie I have seen and I enjoyed it much as the first one, Casino Royale. I was happy that this one was shorter, more straight-to-the-point. The action scenes were done well even though they could have been edited much better. The opening song from Keys/White is better than Chris Cornell's in Royale.

Bond this time faces Dominic Greene who claims he an environmental activist. Actually, he just some bad guy that Bond wants to kill. That's all I know about the plot.

The acting is pretty good. Most people say that Craig is not as good as Brosnan, but I cannot comment on that yet. I'm glad they gave Judi Dench more screen time. I hardly saw her in Casino Royale. Also, the Bond Girl is good-looking.

Basically, I saw this movie for the action. I don't care much what the plot's about. I was rewarded with great action scenes. I loved the beginning car chase. Overall, I thought this was a great movie. Maybe my views will change after I see the earlier Bonds. I rate this film 9/10.
4/10
Garbage in Garbage Out
MRavenwood15 November 2008
If they'd started with a tight script, they might have ended up with a decent movie for Quantum of Solace. There clearly wasn't one, at least anywhere written down that I could tell. In addition to a half-baked revenge plot, which was absolutely impossible to follow - or care about, the camera work and edits are so... clinical and high-speed that the scenes don't evolve at the right pace. You can't care about anything because it's just one action sequence followed by a vague scene, which leads to another show down in another country. Bond is perpetually cold and gritty in this film and there's no dimension to him.

But let's back up a bit and see if you agree with the ingredients to a Bond film 1. Exotic locations 2. "M" 3. James Bond doing something he's not supposed to do. 4. Steamy hook-ups with at least two different women, usually only one becomes the love interest. 5. A black tie affair of some kind. 6. Fighting and chase sequences. 7. A villain that is trying to execute some complicated plan. 8. Felix Leighter 9. "Q" 10. An opening "preamble" that breaks into the main title (writhing girl silhouettes and guns and stuff) accompanied by the famous down the barrel view of Bond.

Check marks on nearly all, except, disastrously, this film dispensed with the traditional opening sequence. The titles were a bunch of boring shots of sand and little animated Bonds running this way and that in the most unimaginative Bond main title in history. It lacked in both energy and information, and they got rid of the famous gun barrel device. That's like a birthday cake without frosting. They also had no love interest. Sure, there are two girls, but there's no chemistry or substance to the scenes.

The first scene of the film starts off with M and Bond making reference to characters and events that happened in Casino Royale. If you didn't see Casino Royale, or see it recently, then I'm afraid you're stuck. On the other hand, I have Casino Royale practically memorized and I couldn't follow the intrigue of this picture. It involved oil and water, and an eco-plot but it just didn't play.

Daniel Craig is not at fault. The film is poorly made. It doesn't cut together in a well-paced, cohesive way. So, if you're a Bond fan and want to see it despite its flaws, go to a matinée to lessen the blow. Frankly, you may still end up being disappointed and you could actually wait for the DVD.
8/10
Craig IS Bond .
shadowman12318 November 2008
Quatom of Solace is the direct sequel leading after the events of Casino Royal. Each Bond film adds something new to the genre as each movie has its own styles and Tastes. Quantom of Solace is a Craig continuing along that same ice cold path which I think in a way most Bond fans were waiting to see. Craig might lack that James Bond charm but he compensates for it well in other emotional conflicts and not to mention the flat out action in it. The plot still focus's on James Bond going to uncover the events of the first movie , although the plot might seem not all that it is however very well compensated for with the continuous flow of action and thusly thats what keeps you in your seat the whole time. The only problem would be that well the main villain might not all that this time round and the leading bond girl might suck , also the Bond song is terrible...Chris Cornell rocked but Alicia Keys might be a good singer , but not a Bond singer ! However if you take QoS for what it is , an evolution of the Bond character then you should be fine. It is not the best Bond movie created but and I would not put it my best of Bond collection - but still it is worth a look at .

QUANTOM OF SOLACE - 8.1 0UT OF 10
10/10
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...
Michael Fargo19 November 2008
This was not only a different kind of James Bond film but a different kind of action film as well. Trimmed of any fat--so much so we get the equivalent of "key" frames in the action, skipping as much exposition as possible--this thing runs like a well tuned sports car. Things move so quickly that the viewer has to work to keep up with what's happening. Through imaginative use of sound the startlingly beautiful cinematography (the opening car chase, an amazing edit on the Palio di Siena, a shoot out where we hear only Puccini's Tosca on the track), my interest never wavered as it did during the conclusion of the previous Casino Royale.

There is no attempt to recap what happens in the previous film. The action picks up where it left off in Casino Royale. You might be at a disadvantage if you aren't familiar with that film. Still the action sequences here top anything before in Casino Royale. A chase through a construction site and bell tower was so imaginative that it could stand alone as a short film.

Mark Forster's "Quantum of Solace" up's the ante for the next installment. So much of the "cheese" has been omitted from the Bond series (which was fun but sadly predictable and often silly) now that we're working in a realm of thriller rather than espionage drag. Something now actually seems to be at stake for James Bond rather than a reputation as a lothario and a wag.

The complaint that Bond's vengeance is a bitter pill is not without relevance in today's world. How the character emerges at the end elevates the material far more than anything we've seen in the franchise. As a nod to its forbearer's the opening title sequence is elaborate and references the climax of the film. As always, it was a dazzling display of graphic arts.

I hope the trend to revise the Bond series continues. This was one of the big surprises for me at the movies this year. I could watch it again in an instant.
3/10
Quantum Of Solace- Licensed To Kill, Not Thrill
zzzoeb5 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pre-credit sequences did serve a purpose.

In almost every film, before those creatively designed titles and credits would pour in the scene, there would be a short sequence introducing the man James Bond to the audience. There are also a number of times when the opening scene has introduced the villains and even provided us clues to the rest of the plot. But, while it might have been indulgent to let Bond settle down to business, it did lend the entire franchise a lot of charm.

And charm is what is essentially missing in Marc Foster's 'Quantum Of Solace', a film which , right from its name, does not sound or even is halfway as charming as the films of the past. The film is so desperately keen to prove itself a serious film, a film that refutes the trademark elements that it ends up being easily the worst film in the series. Yes, sir, even 'Die Another Day' was better than this.

Indeed, it is the first scene that ruins it completely. It is of course an opening scene but unlike any other. In the past, we saw Bond flirting with gadgets, cars, women and smart-ass lines, proving why 'Nobody Does It Better'. It was hilarious.

But instead we cut right away to a frenetic chase scene on roads and tunnels that wind across Lake Como and we are immediately, unnecessarily lurched to a world of thundering gears and gun-play. Excuse me, sir, but this is a Bond movie and not a 'Need For Speed' installment. And I was desperately crying out for some gimmicks in the car that can beat the bad guys. But, no, I was left without the old-time charm of those movies.

The entire film functions like a sequel to 'Casino Royale'(which I found to be more fun) and this spoils it as well. We are thrust a plot about Bond pursuing the mastermind who had sent out his lover Vesper Lynd as a spy to deceive him and MI6. 30 years ago, 'Diamonds Are Forever' began with a scene chronicling Bond taking his revenge against Blofeld for killing his wife in the previous film. It was so much fun and Bond, played memorably by Sean Connery, sealed it unforgettably with 'Welcome To Hell, Blofeld'. It was an instant classic.

But no, the revenge story plods on and gives enough excuse to Bond to beat up bad guys. The locations are perfectly shot with all their beauty and grittiness but the relentless purges of violence may sicken even a fan of Bourne films. Yeah, even Connery was brutal and ruthless at times but Craig is completely different. There is something mechanical about him. He is lacking the real soul and essence that made James Bond a true legend with us.

Blame it on the writers indeed to assign him a world-weary look but Craig, despite being a fine actor, can hardly bring any versatility to his character. There are times when he carries on smart banter with M or a woman who is supposed to be his guide in La Paz but the rest seems simply a character who can't wait to use his fists again. And he uses them an awful lot! Sigh!

That is only one of the problems. The problem also lies with the female lead in the film. Olga Kurylenko as Camille is undoubtedly attractive. However, she too tries too hard to be a serious girl that we end up losing all interest in her. It could have been the role of a beautiful woman with no brains, a beautiful woman whom Bond, with his flair for heroics and misogyny is supposed to save from the villain. But, no, there is no romance between the two; Both Bond and Camille are too busy with avenging the people they have lost and this sudden dramatic rhythm only slows down the film's thrill factor.

And then there is the villain. Like Craig, Mathieu Almaric has been given a role that is a complete waste of his potential. A true Bond villain is a man menacing enough to command a screen presence and make Bond cringe. But all we get is a faint presence which makes the expected confrontation a routine affair. Perhaps, that is why the climax is such a dull affair! Indeed, how I miss those times! The action scenes are nicely shot but I have to say that they are too fast and hectic. The problem is that you get little time to marvel any masterstroke of storyboarding, unlike the neatly cut action scenes of the past films. It is all too hurried and harried instead of making any real sense. And yes sir, they drag a lot!

On an overall, it is not a bad film. That is if you are not a true Bond fan and you just want to watch the action and get out of the theaters. The visuals are plain fantastic but we only get to glean in the locations while the rest of the film whizzes by in a forgettable way.

As I said, the 007 series has hit a new-low. For, even escapism is not about being pretentiously serious. It is about being smart and irresistibly charming. Bond has always the license to thrill, than just kill. But here is a film that kills all the soul while failing to thrill us as well. Not letting Bond linger on his martini seems to be unpardonable crime itself.
10/10
Quantum Of Solace Shines - Another Step In Right Direction For Bond
treeskier80220 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum Of Solace is a step in the right direction for the Bond franchise. Going into this film, I was a bit nervous due to the the mixed reviews. But true Bond fans with and open mind should come out of this film feeling very excited.

Like Casino Royale before it, Quantum is not your typical Bond film. There are no over-the-top gadgets, no Miss Moneypenny or Q, and no blatant sexual names for Bond girls. This is attempt to make the franchise more realistic and bring it into the 21st century. Audiences are craving movies that are more realistic such as The Bourne Series and the new Batman films. The Bond we have known in the past is great, but for the series to continue it must be re-bourne. But, do not be mistaken, this film is not a Bourne copycat, it is true Bond.

Where Casino's storyline took some time to develop giving us the foundation for the series rebirth, I found Quantum to be action packed with a tight storyline. To me, I enjoyed this pace and I think the next act will be even better.

Bond still has witty one liners, but only during moments where it truly works and not for comedic response but to show how cool he is. There are still gadgets, but realistic ones...where can I get a mobile phone link like Bond? Craig's Bond is a true bad ass. We saw him develop James Bond in Casino Royale and in Quantum he further develops the character. Unlike Casino where Bond is somewhat wet behind the ears, Quantum's Bond is now arguably the best secret agent/assassin in the business. We witness the progression of how Bond develops relationships that will be essential in the story of future movies (with M and Felix Leiter and even with Mathis). We understand a little bit about who Bond is based on what happened to him in Casino and now with Quantum. The next film will elaborate even more I'm sure.

For Bond fans, you have to enjoy how the series is moving forward in a nice storyline. Dominic Greene, like Mr. White (are the names named after colors for a reason? first White, then Greene...you that dabble in martial arts understand). There is some evil organization that the world is trying to discover more about. Could this organization be SMERSH or perhaps SPECTER? Could Ernest Stavro Blofeld be its number 1? You also have to enjoy the subtle references to the old tongue in cheek Bond. A girl dies covered in black oil (Goldfinger), Bond killing a victim who grasps to his tie on a rooftop (The Spy Who Loved Me), Bond and his girl jumping out of a cargo plane (The Living Daylights). How about the girl Fields? What was her first name? I wouldn't be surprised if it it was Pussy. We even get a refreshing description of Bond's drink from the bartender, which is so much less hokey than hearing it uttered from Bond. Incidentally, Bond acted a bit inebriated after drinking 6 of the martinis and looked hungover yet ready to go the day after, but alas that is more real than we have ever seen in a Bond film.

Quantum packs in a lot of cool action to go with the story. Namely the story is the discovery of this evil organization which will probably be named in the next film. Quantum is an Act II of a well orchestrated play and I look forward to Act III.

Previously the franchise had run aground in creating a storyline, an Act 1 through Act 21. With Craig's Bond, the Acts are progressing very deliberately. We get to see Bond develop as a person and professional. To me this is exciting and I only wish the next film was being released next year. Rating 10 of 10 stars.
7/10
Oh what a major disappointment
MinionsUnite14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How could they get it so right for Casino Royale and then get it so wrong for this one! Director was a poor choice and Martin Campbell should have been kept on. We were spoilt with a real human Bond in Casino Royale, and now we have one who could be substituted with Arnie for his ability to overcome anything and everyone. That's not taking anything away from Daniel Craig, as he must be truly disappointed with this follow up which seeks to send Bond back to the doldrum days of Roger Moore.(sorry to all those who liked him, but he was cheese!) Why was such an original and successful film as CR not relied upon to extend,strengthen and add more to the formula? It could have been built upon, instead of being given to a director whose previous credits would hardly be the perfect CV in applying for such a crucial follow on. It completely baffles me. Where the producers showed bravery, and courage in convincing the public at large that Daniel Craig was up to the job, and boy did he deliver the goods! They then throw caution to the wind at what was a critical time, with high public expectations, to let Bond down. So here we have action piece, after action piece(yawn), what's the story? Who knows? Oh let's throw another dis-jointed action piece in, and by the way, we know Bond bleeds now, so let's make sure we constantly remind the public by making him look like he should be in an ad for Elastoplast! Boring, boring, boring! It remains to be seen where they go from here, but I do hope that sensibility wins the day, and they give an injection of what really should have been seen in QoS to the next Bond film...otherwise the future is bleak for the franchise again! We don't need complicated story lines with massive action pieces, Casino Royale proved that. I would have to say that the train scene in Casino Royale with the parleying between Vesper and Bond was worth more than the whole QoS film! I've just had an idea....hope you're listening Barbara...give the next one to ......Matthew Vaughan! I guarantee you he will do the job! That's where you found DC so why not? Or are you in the rarefied atmosphere?
8/10
Quality of Bond
RCWjr19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have read other reviews, both fan and paid critic, that seem to absolutely miss the point of Quantum of Solace. The biggest miss is that this is the very first direct sequel in the franchise. We catch up with Bond literally minutes after the events of Casino Royale, which means he is still "learning" to be 007. With that, his emotions are very fresh off the loss of Vesper. He is still evolving into the Bond that Connery introduced with Dr No back in 1962. The producers are doing a very smart thing here, in that they are taking Bond back to the beginning and allowing him in these first two films to become Bond. I have no doubt that all the elements fans have learned to love about Bond will be introduced in Craig's subsequent adventures as Bond. But you folks need to let him become Bond, not go from the ending of Casino Royale and all of a sudden be a mature 00 agent. Craig does that at the end of Solace, his leaving behind of the last symbolism connected to Vesper and his subsequent admission to M show he is now ready to become the agent we know.

From start to finish, QoS hits us heavy and hard. There is no wasted moment on the screen, each minute is pushing the birth of Bond along. There have been complaints about the shaky action in the first act of the film. In my opinion, this action has to be frantic, it is a direct representation of Bond's mental state. He is not taking time to think much, but react. I think given the penchant for the hand-held action the last 5 years, I have become accustomed to it and I was not bothered by it, as said, it represented for me the visual image of Bond's state of mind.

Once we are done with the frantic 1st act, the 2nd act gives us the usual pause for exposition. We learn that a new threat is amongst the world, it is called Quantum. We are given a more details of what this new organization is all about. Greene is the new villain and like Le Chiffre, we learn just enough about him, but in the end, he is yet a clog in the wheel of Quantum. This is much in the same vain as the early Bond films introduced Spectre. I really love how this new criminal organization is being introduced.

Finally we get a 3rd act that is all about Bond putting his recent past to rest and becoming a full fledged 00 agent. The ending is both satisfying and emotional. I can't think of a better 3rd act in Bond history. There has been some who have complained about the lack of depth or exploration of character with the two Bond Girls introduced in this film; Camille and Strawberry Fields. First off, anyone that has been a long time fan knows there are always two Bond Girls introduced, one that has a short time on screen (usually meeting an untimely demise) and the main Bond Girl who grabs the bulk of Bond's time. This film is no different; Fields is the quick, but ultimately doomed one and Camille is the main. Any complaints here come from reviewers with absolutely no history with the franchise. I loved how Fields ended up being much like Jill Masterson of "Goldfinger", both in screen time and demise.

On a superficial note, I enjoyed the title song. I'm not much on Jack White, but the song sets a perfect tone and coupled with Key's vocals, it kicks the movie off in the right atmosphere. It was nice to see the return of the T&A opening credits sequence, another nod that Craig's incarnation of Bond is that much closer to the one introduced in 1962.

Pish posh on those that can't see this film for what it is. I can not wait for the next installment.
6/10
Unexpectedly weak compared to CR
kismit16 November 2008
I looked forward to this film more than any other this year so maybe my own expectations set me up. From the cacaphonous Jack White theme music through the drudgy first 45 minutes I never got a feel for what the director was trying to do. It felt more lke a straight sequel than a standalone film and may have turned off as many new Bond fans as CR brought in. No issues with Craig, and his female costar was a lot better than I was expecting but looking back it was like an episode of 24, with a slightly more resolved ending. Bad writing or bad directing I am not sure. The fact that he wasn't pronging every woman in sight and remains true to the character established in his first film shows the new Bond is still on the right track but the next flick will be most critical in the franchise. I just can't picture anyone who hadn't seen CR even understanding what was happening in this picture.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic, Thrilling and Captivating
casagrandicooper27 April 2018
Firstly, opening sequence picking right from where Casino Royale ended. Incredible car chase. Stunningly filmed. Puts a massive smile on your face. And a set grimace on Bond's, which is carried through the movie. Put into perspective, Casino Royale started the franchise over. Fresh start with a fresh faced Bond, new to the 00 business. This one puts him right where he should be; rose coloured lenses smashed, and trying to sort his head out in this world of agents, double agents, being used, and using people. Takes a hard soul to survive, and Daniel Craig is excellent, taking us on a journey where we see Bond trying to get comfortable in his skin. If us as an audience are left uncomfortable, good. This is how we are supposed to feel, empathising with a character who inhabits a nightmarish world, but must come out as the hero. Which he does, closing the circle of guilt left through Vesper's death, and leaving the path clear for Skyfall. This movie is like Empire in Star Wars, a dark mid chapter which is needed in order to develop characters and lead to a resolution only to be delivered by the next movie. Seen on its own, it can feel out of place; but as part of the 007 cannon, a great foundation from which all further stories will grow and develop. Enjoy it.
4/10
Overall, very disappointing
dgriggs620 November 2008
I have been a James Bond fan ever since seeing Doctor No in the winter of 1963, shortly before my 12th birthday. Very soon thereafter I read all the Bond novels written up to that point, and absolutely loved the way Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewellyn brought to life the characters of Bond, M, Miss Moneypenny, and Q. Overall, these actors and characters were fairly representative of the characters in the novels. Well, I am totally fed up with the trend in several of the recent Bond movies to have Bond be so disobedient and rebellious. As I remember it, 007 was argumentative with M only once throughout all of the novels .... after Bond was captured by the Russians after the end of the novel You Only Live Twice and before the beginning of The Man With the Golden Gun. And he had been brainwashed by the Soviets!! Otherwise, Bond was completely loyal to M (and the feeling was mutual!), almost like a devoted son to a father. Well, that is all out the window in several of the movies of the last 20 years, including this one. "Quantum" has excellent action, but trying to follow the twisted plot became very difficult without subtitles. My advice is to wait until DVDs are available, then put on the subtitles.
1/10
Not nearly good enough!
Alslay16 November 2008
I like Bond, in fact I've liked every Bond I've ever seen. They're never deep and meaningful, but it's rare that a Bond film has me looking at my watch all the way through. I found myself hoping the end was near on more than one occasion during The Quantum of Solace.

Bond has a tried and tested recipe for success and for some reason they've just ignored it! This film has no plot - so until the final seen in the desert, there is simply no storyline of substance, and its been replaced by too many gratuitous 'Bourne-like' chase and fighting scenes. Gone are the cheesy one liners, the (bordering) inappropriate comments, and the trademark stunts. Gone are the things that made Bond.

I couldn't wait for this film to end, and felt like I'd lost out on 106 minutes of my life.

In summary: The worst film since The Simpsons!!
5/10
Didn't live up to expectations.
amber_maishment8 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Following the amazing Casino Royale (2006), I rightly had high expectations for Quantum of Solace (2008). However, I should have known the former was going to be very difficult to trail. Due of how high the bar was set for Casino; unfortunately I was a fairly disappointed with this sequel. Don't get me wrong as some aspects of the film were worthy, however they were not as admirable as its predecessors.

Wanting to take revenge for his lovers' death, James Bond (Daniel Craig) aims to save the country's valuable resource from being taken over by Dominic Greene. As we all should be aware, the expositions of all Bond films are of importance (although they are becoming repetitive). Although this particular opening was not as good as previously, it is still impressive. The high-speed car chase is hot with a hand-held camera providing shaky and quick shots, thrilling the audience and creating intensity and adrenaline. The film itself is very fast paced as Bond jumps from location to location without much in between. However, due to the film being so action-packed, the fast pacing makes the film hard to follow and the plot quite confusing. It almost seems that, if it's possible, there is an imbalance between action and plot information. It is all action and no plot or narrative direction to help the audience understand what on earth is happening.

Lacking deep character development, the audience doesn't get to build any sort of relationships with any the protagonists, making it difficult to connect with them. They are very bland which gives them a lack of depth, which is why I found myself not caring much for any of the characters. The villain is very dull and uninteresting – I did not feel much fear or hatred against him at all. Olga Kurylenko plays the Bond Girl. Although she is awfully pretty and did play her role well, she was also not very memorable at all. It wouldn't have made much of a difference personally if she weren't in it – nor did the other characters.

Although the characters in the movie aren't established, as always, Daniel Craig still owns the role and is the finest Bond to this day. He gives greater realism to the film with his very focused and driven performance. Though he has very minimal dialogue, his solid and poker- faced act brings the script to life as he has in Casino also. This performance is definitely the appeal of the movie.

While it is enjoyable to watch the high-speed action scenes and of course see Craig do what he does best, the Quantum of Solace is let down entirely due to the lack of excitement and direction in the plot. The undeveloped characters lessen the experience and let it down, leaving not only me but many other viewers also, highly dissatisfied.
7/10
Good bond movie
Calicodreamin10 September 2020
A good follow up to casino royale. The storyline is fairly well developed, and keeps a good pace throughout. great cinematography and action coordination.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
If we refused to do business with villains, we'd have almost no one to trade with!
hitchcockthelegend15 January 2020
Quantum of Solace is directed by Marc Forster and written by Paul Haggis, Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, suggested from the stories written by Ian Fleming. It stars Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arteton & Jeffrey Wright. It is the 22nd film of the James Bond series.

Following on straight from Casino Royale, we find James Bond thirsting for revenge on those he believes responsible for Vesper Lynd's death.

Is Quantum Of Solace a great action film? Yes it surely is, is it however a great James Bond picture? Not quite, apparently, given the often venomous reaction to it from some Bond fan quarters. You wonder if Quantum Of Solace is a victim of Casino Royale's soaring success? A film that even surprised the many Daniel Craig haters. Were these internet warriors preying for a bad Bond film purely to further their argument that Craig should not be Bond? Did QOS give them smug satisfaction? Actually no it didn't, the box office and longevity of professional critiques proves this fact. Further viewings of QOS show it to be very astute in the Bond universe, where much of the charges of it not being fun enough etc just do not stick. As for not being Bondian enough? Opening car chase, a pursuit on foot that ends in a quite exhilarating rope dangle punch up, speedboat chaos, aeroplane peril with free-falling! Not Bond enough? Seriously? While it's also great to see Bond active on a motorcycle again.

The Casino Royale rebooted and re-suited offering was popular because it had an earthy make over, Daniel Craig's Bond is a fallible human being brimming with egotistical ruggedness. It's much of the same here in Quantum, where he is forced to go rouge, something that again has proved to be an itchy narrative thrust with sections of the Bond faithful. Yet as serious as he is, driven by pangs of annoyance, revenge and unanswered questions, Bond does have time to lay out a quip, there is some fun stuff their, honestly, Mother. Personally I enjoy the dark half of this Bond, "I don't have any friends", he wouldn't care", and "how many is that now?", these are moments nearly as good as the interwoven opera blood bath and Bond drinking away his demons with 6 high velocity cocktails. Then there is Craig. Ah, Craig, Daniel Craig, again perfect in the tux and kicking arse with streetwise credibility, each scar on his nicely formed body a testament to this new rugged Bond of the people. That he rises above a relatively muddling script is testament to not only his acting ability, but also his new found acceptance in this most iconic of cinematic roles amongst the British institution that is James Bond.

The rest of the cast are a mixed bunch, Jeffrey Wright & Giancarlo Giannini are again merely making up the numbers, though the last gets to give Bond one of the film's darkest and cold inducing moments. Judi Dench of course does her usual solid M performance, swearing and growing the balls she hinted at previously, while Olga Kurylenko is very much a sparky Bond girl to savour; even if the sub-plot involving her almost feels like it was shoe-horned into the script as an added extra. Elsewhere there are problems. Casino Royale, had on the surface a weak villain, a man merely playing cards to pay off a more evil source, but he was effective. Sadly here in the Quantam universe the main villain is a hindrance to the picture. Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene does a good line in smarmy, but he's so weak the film nearly crumbles under the weight of his banality. The people at the house of Bond need to realise that little fish villains are only OK if we get the big daddy shark showing his/her face later in proceedings, for if this trend continues I fear the franchise could well lose the edge so well built up in Royale, and Gemma Arteton is pretty, but pretty ineffective. The locations are sumptuous, mind, and the sets are Bondian delights, with the title sequence certainly hitting the spot in spite of the quite dreadful Jack Black and Alcia Keys' theme song that accompanies the sequence. A homage to a former great Bond film sequence is respectful but a touch lazy, but QOS still overcomes its failings to be up above many action pictures of the last decade; this in spite of it being very slim line at an hour and 45 in length. Crucially, though, it pulses with Bond aggression and egotistical nous, just as Fleming wanted it. But this only comes out with further viewings...

Skyfall will be the next venture for Bond, regardless of quality we know that it will fail to appease every Bond fan on the planet. That's just the way it is with the series, so many want so many different things from their Bond. But I feel this is a good period for Bond, they do have the right man wearing the tux and as a character he is well tuned into the times, both politically and cinematically, it's now up to the makers to fuse the two and deliver a film to fully realise the rebooted franchise's potential and maybe, just maybe, win the dissenters' trust. 7/10
7/10
Quantum of Bourne
Lunita10 November 2008
Let's start with the good things about this movie: It has an interesting story with a dark organization that wants to rule the world. It has some essential things that I'd expect from a Bond movie and that make watching it a pleasure. The classic intro with guns, smoke, girls, nice music. Yes, many complain about the song and when I heard it first I didn't like it. But it works in combination with that intro. Then there's the Aston Martin which unfortunately ends up as a wreck right in the beginning and wasn't to be seen again. Two cool Bond girls, stunning, witty, brave. Exotic and nice locations. M watching over Bond behind the scenes while threatening to take him out of service.

So why only 7/10? Because there were also some things that were missing (Q, gadgets) and some things that weren't right. I'm still struggling with Craig who is an excellent actor with a great body but who is also too working class and, well, blond. But OK, he makes that up by his acting skills. Really annoying though were the Bourne Ultimatum style cuts. When a chase or fight begins the nice and appropriate pace changed to "one cut per 300 milliseconds", you see blurry details, constantly changing perspectives and a mess that ruins every chance to grasp what's going on. Hell, they said before that they want to address a younger audience. But is a ludicrous cut pace the measure of choice? That was the only part that really, really annoyed me. Several times I closed my eyes. Hell, I like fights and car chases. But I like to be able to follow the action.

So, next time please don't waste great fight choreography by cutting it to microscopic, blurry and shaky pieces.
7/10
I won't remember this movie for more than a month
stefan_aik_7931 October 2008
I saw James Bond - Quantum of Solace this night, with high expectations on the movie and on Daniel Craig. Craig did it well, not quite good as in Caino Royal but still good. The movie had many but not the greater action scenes, but they were okay. And the girl, BondBrud as we call her in Sweden, she is hot ;)

The movie starts with the action and speed from Casino Royal, but in the middle of the movie it's sinks down too a low level and nothing happens. Some fun comments from Craig and the others, but most comments with style, style which Craig definitely has in this movie.

The movie: 7 out of 10 Daniel Craig: 8 out of 10

OK movie, but still more too work on. It's nothing i will remember for a long time, a month maybe..
10/10
Strawberry Fields forever!
nigel-3523 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Felt the film glossed over the threesome between Strawberry, James and his brother Basildon. I hope Agent Fields' guidance of Bond through his hotel suite stationery is elucidated in the DVD's deleted scenes, though I'd be willing to understudy with Gemma Arterton if Daniel Craig has moved on to other projects.

The film requires high visual intelligence and achieves its short running time by judicious compression of scenes. A clear example is Camille & James walking towards a Bolivian bus and the next scene showing them sat within as the bus pulls away. Mathis is impugned by Le Chiffre in the finale of Casino Royale leading to his interrogation and, in this film, his subsequent acquittal. So a guy whom we instinctively like, whom we are led to suspect, we joyously embrace again as an ally. The SIS(MI6) touchscreen computer scene requires rapid visual intake and I look forward to examining this in slow motion with the DVD release. The high resolution facial photography at the opera would suffer from the camera shaking, though image processing could compensate, provided the target was clearly identified. I would recommend a second viewing of this film before final decision on its merit. It courageously breaks new ground.
7/10
Bond is Back
moviewizguy7 December 2008
Picking up minutes after "Casino Royale," this movie is about James Bond seeking revenge for the death of his loved one, while setting out to stop an environmentalist from taking control of a country's water supply.

After the great "Casino Royale," a reboot to the 007 films, many people have set it high for "Quantum of Solace." No wonder it's not being as well received as "Casino Royale." Obviously, this film is not better than the one before it, but I still think it's a good step toward another Bond film, which will come, no doubt.

"Casino Royale" lacked the action scenes in most 007 films. I think it's apparent that this film tries to make that up by filling this movie with as many action scenes as it can, without being too filled with action and little about plot. The action sequences in here are done so well, it should already earn you the price of admission to see this film. They're done that well.

However, saying that, this Bond film is basically a revenge flick. There's a weak plot going under here. Bond is more PO'ed than ever, steering clear away from his character from being charming and charismatic and humorous to an efficient killing machine, along the lines of Jason Bourne in the Bourne series. In fact, how the action scenes are shot is like the Bourne series. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

Daniel Craig is great again, reprising his role as Bond. I think he does a good job as the more revengeful, violent Bond. Bond girl Olga Kurylenko also does a very good job in here as well. However, poor Judi Dench has barely anything to do in the movie but to complain about Bond's behavior. Let's hope she does something better next time. The song being promoted in this movie was really cool and hip, in my opinion. I liked it a lot.

Overall, perhaps this will disappoint a lot of fans who are devoted to this franchise. I'm not one whatsoever so I can care less if Bond is not Bond and more like Jason Bourne. The action sequences, again, are really well done. For that reason, and if you're an action freak, that should make you go see the movie. For everything else, it's not all great but I think it ends in a great setup for the next film. I particularly liked the ending.
6/10
I Don't Find The Title Related to The Movie
michaelxqh7 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A complete piece, impressive character arc, consistent pace of narration. However, the movie also in lack of intensive action scenes and catastrophic events, which really makes this film a regular one in the series. Beside the main predicament, the change of Bond is also quite touching, as he learned more of his emotion towards Vesper and himself in this movie. A great and necessary film if you want to explore the story of 007.
7/10
Every Bond wants to be better than its predecessor...this isn't one of them.
StevePunchard1 December 2021
The previous Bond, Casino Royal which introduced Daniel Craig to the scene, was ground-breaking while the Bond to follow after this, Skyfall, is what I consider to be one of the best ever. Quantum of Solace, where I just don't quite understand the title, doesn't hold up. As for Bond fans everywhere, and you know who you are, I'm betting you've already seen this and made your mind up where it fits within the franchise. Maybe this will help solidify your opinion.

I really liked the female, Olga, lead's acting and accent...very cool. Further, really liked the addition of Felix as the American CIA agent...also a cool cat. There are some justifications in this film where in one part James calls out all the bad guys at a symphony concert and they all promptly leave the room 😊 The villain is properly portrayed by a creepy and despising character. The ending comes together but you shouldn't have to wait that long for satisfaction.

Watch it for sure but it's just not the best Bond going.
2/10
Good action movie, better than many, not James Bond
john-304719 March 2009
Quantum of Solace is a good action movie better than many as it has some good actors in the principle rolls. But that's all it is, an American style action movie with a series of special effects linked together with a tenuous plot and a high body count, with a few plot devices pilfered from earlier JB movies throne in for good measure. If action movies turn you on then you will love this movie, you may even believe the studio hype that it is "The perfect Bond film" and I have no doubt it will make a lot of money for the studio. As a James Bond fan the things that set the Bond films apart from the rest and has kept the franchise going for over 45 years wasn't just the stunts and the special effects, it was the element of fantasy, the portrayal of Bond as a intelligent, charming, sophisticated character rather than a macho thug. It was Q, the gadgets and the cars. It was the clever dialog and the humour in the script. All these things are missing in this movie. The studio must have decided it was more profitable to go with the trend more violence and effects and less plot and intrigue, where the thrill of the ride was more important than the dialogue. This movie would have worked just as well whatever the lead character was called. As a current generation American style action movie I would give it eight out of ten but as a James Bond movie maybe one or two if I am feeling generous. Bond, James Bond, I don't think so.
6/10
Ponderous in being slightly opaque
phenomynouss24 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Even now I can't fully describe just how or why Quantum of Solace is an "inferior" Bond film, save for a fact that it seems to put more emphasis on one chase sequence or another in a gritty sort of way that would almost seem to step into the empty-headed vomit-inducing-camera-shaking of a "spy thriller" like the Bourne Identity, and yet manages to maintain its own identity (no pun) as a Bond film of this "new" Bond era.

The main prevailing error or issue in the film is the seemingly gaping disconnect between two plot lines that run throughout the movie. The micro-story of Bond wanting revenge on -someone- (not even really explained who) over Vesper's problems leading to her self-sacrificing suicide, and the fear by M and MI6 that Bond is letting his emotions destroy his subtlety and skill as an agent, and instead opt to barrel through enemies aimlessly and kill anyone he wants (spoiler alert: he doesn't do any of that).

While we are probably supposed to believe that Bond is driven to stopping Dominic Green (Matthieu Amalric) in whatever his dastardly plan with Bolivia is, the key issue here is that the two plot lines have almost no connection whatsoever, and that Vesper's sacrifice seemingly has nothing to do with Quantum or its schemes. I say "seemingly" because the movie very clearly shows the opposite, but does not show exactly HOW she has to do with Quantum's schemes. She's just an opaque plothole that may or may not be a red herring. Bond shows absolutely no emotion over her save for a few minor scenes, usually involving Mathis or Camille, of which there are not nearly enough of these to give any justification of this sense of a need for revenge.

At no point in time is it ever explicitly explained or mentioned just why Bond is so "devoted" to stopping Dominic Green beyond the fact that it's his assignment to do so. Very early on it is revealed that he, along with Mr. White and countless others from big-name diplomats to nameless henchmen, are part of a secret organization devoted to -something- (not even really explained what). The only memorably line about Quantum is Mr. White joking to the degree of "Here we are afraid to say too much over the phone thinking the CIA and MI6 are listening in on every word when you don't even know we exist!" Aside from the seeming infiltration of people on almost every level in every organization criminal and political, in an almost sort of Illuminati sort of way, Quantum really does nothing but remain a nameless cloud over which it apathetically watches things happen and occasionally puts its own people out of their misery when they are on the brink of death and/or about to reveal too much about them or break them out of the situation. Even Mr. White gets away alive and unpunished.

Dominic Green also appears to be so completely out of his element that everything about him just screams "nameless minion" from the beginning. He doesn't even seem to be sane, as he constantly fills the screen with bug-eyed expressions of frozen-stupid, like a mix of Barty Grouch Jr. in Harry Potter, and Grima Wormtongue in Lord of the Rings, only without as much to do. The only time Green appears remotely human is when he gives a speech or talks with a Bolivian general, in which in either case it seems clear that he's been prepped with a pre-written speech or protocol by other members of Quantum.

Dominic's entire hare-brained scheme is also another dangling plot-hole in the making that never really seems important even though the entire movie is focused on it; it first throws off the viewer into thinking it involves exploiting untapped oil resources in a Bolivian desert, then is later revealed that there is no oil there, and that Green's plan is little more than to dam up the underwater aquifers in Bolivia and force a drought on the country, before literally pulling out and doing the same elsewhere while the international community deals with Bolivia's problems. There's nothing else in the plan aside from that, and I fail to see any conceivable way that this would make any lasting money beyond a few millions made screwing investors out of oil and pipeline money.

Green proves on multiple occasions to be just as dumb and incompetent as a campy Bond villain of old, most memorably in which he is leaving an opera with a group of investors, and catches Bond in a hallway, after an earlier scene in which he ordered Bond to be killed. Not only does Green freeze up and stare at Bond for what feels like 30 seconds, but he proceeds to do absolutely nothing to stop him short of sending only two guards to have a shootout with him which obviously fails.

What is then left in the film is a piece of poor exposition tied around multiple action sequences that ultimately have a sense of confusion attached to them. What is most stunning is how Casino Royale had viewers on the edge of their seat with the mere action of a POKER GAME and yet the colossal boat chases and roof-top acrobatics and down-hill car-flipping chases have people on the back of their seats, placidly staring and wondering what is happening, why it's happening, and when Bond will do something 007-y instead of just being a generic pawn in a gigantic action sequence that could just as easily be slipped into a bland straight-to-DVD movie without much trouble.

In totality, there's barely half a movie here, with enough explosions and guns and fighting to fill in the rest for time, making it the shortest Bond movie, but nowhere near the worst, as the -potential- story lines set up for future entries are good enough on their own to not be a total failure.
3/10
Pretty much everything I have to say has been said already.
unmarked_shoe17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by saying I am generally easily entertained. I love a lot of movies I know are just plain bad, I'm definitely not picky. I was also definitely not entertained by Quantum of Solace.

Firstly, terrible Bond villain. Dominic Greene was boring, uninteresting, and barely even qualifies as a villain. The only reason I even remember his name is because I read it in other peoples comments. Yes, this movie had me so uninterested that I don't remember the name of even one of the new characters. I found it actually hard to watch any scene with Dominic Greene in it. The action sequences were practically impossible to follow because of the rapid cuts and shaky camera. I find it silly to say that the shaky camera style of filming makes something more realistic when 95% of movies are, in and of themselves, not realistic.

This movie had a plot for maybe the first ten minutes and the last ten minutes but the rest of it was just lost. They gave tons of indications that this movie was going to be about Bond chasing the organization that was lurking in the shadows in Casino Royale and was ultimately responsible for Vespa's death but literally the only single thing we learn about said organization is in the last ten or so minutes when Dominic Greene mentions it's name is Quantum! 2 hours of unwatchable action scenes for one name? If I had known the movie was not about the secret organization and was instead two hours of Bond running around chasing some boring, moderately evil guy who likes to steal water I would have stayed home. If it weren't for the fact that sometimes they mention Vespa, this movie would barely even qualify as a sequel because the plots are only related for 20 minutes or so.

This movie kept me interested for the first 10 minutes and the last ten minutes and, with the exception of a single scene around the middle where Bond visits Mathis, I wanted to sleep through the rest. I'm glad I saw this movie for free because I never would have paid to see a Bond movie this bad.
6/10
Bond, shames Bond – the review of Quantum of Solace
karthik-globalsoul10 November 2008
(Karthik Narayan)

When you see your first Bond movie in a theater, you naturally go with great expectations. Especially when a movie is hyped big time, and releases a good week before it releases in the US!

A typical Bond movie would have cheesy punch lines that would shame a Rajinikanth movie, romance scenes that would give Kamal Hassan second thoughts if he was growing old; not to forget the techno wiz and gadgets that would make NASA feel they were playing with toy balloons.

Being a sequel to Casino Royale, which many swear by as one of the best and most realistic Bond movies of all time, this movie started off with action sequences right from the word GO. All the action scenes were brilliantly choreographed; the visual imagery was mind boggling. Mind you, this is supposed to be a believable human Bond.

Here's a little something I typed in my mobile while watching the movie!!

With Daniel Craig brutally assaulting and killing people at will The movie was all about the licence to kill

And all through the movie we had this chill (Definitely not because of air conditioning) but because of the thrill

To get out of this movie halfway you had to summon your will Simply because you had already paid the entire bill!!

The only thing that made Bond yet again not so humane was that in spite of his cards getting blocked, his bills being unpaid and his movements being tracked, he always managed to get what he wanted and too easily. Also, without hi-tech gadgetry, Bond always manages to get to the low down and track the enemy. Maybe some things are best untold, but if the movie makers want to make Bond more believable, they need to make things normal rather than superhuman. But yes, there was the emotional Bond that made him human in this movie.

Bond girls and villains, however stole the show. I particularly enjoyed the role of Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene; his beady little eyes showed an array of emotions such as greed, lust and hatred in a beautiful sort of way. I would surely look out for more of his movies from now on, with a well toned body, good looks, he is good material for movies.

Olga Kurylenko doesn't have much to say except a few words now and then – her opening one-liner "get in" and at the end, when she says "get in" have good touches to it; other than that she isn't much. She has this resemblance to Catherine Zeta Jones (only slightly). Gemma Atherton is too cute and pretty and doesn't deserve the treatment she gets in the movie.

A hundred sms-es, a few inside jokes, buckets of drooling (Ananth, Samba and his friend were eyeing all the girls in the theater), and a few verses later, the movie finally came to an end.

Keeping in line with our usual habit, we did stay in the movie hall till the end of the credits – hoping to see something good to get our money's worth, but the sweepers of the theater were so annoying, they just popped in and asked us to vacate. So what's the big deal with credits?

As I walked to the parking lot, I asked my friend who had watched the movie with me, what does quantum of solace mean?

He shook his head at me and we never spoke a word after that about the movie. Somehow it didn't all bond…

Rating: 6/10 (purely for action)
7/10
Boring at points and not well shot
RogueVirus2420 May 2021
I appreciate how this movie continued the story after the casino royale and I was happy at first but even tho this movie is shorter than casino royale it still feels slow and boring at points and the action sequences are not that well shot and edited there's a lot of shaky camera shots and I couldn't process half the time, maybe because casino royale did a good job it set the bar higher and this movie couldn't keep up... this movie is good if you want the story but this is not what a James Bond movie action looks like...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
General Thoughts
Inspector Clouseau29 November 2008
Casino Royale was a cracker. This wasn't. It tries to live up to Casino Royale but it loses it's way. It's not a bad film and if you were going to line up all the films from the franchise it would probably still rank in the top half but somehow you still leave the cinema feeling a little bit let down.

I also have one major grumble - Director's! STOP using excessive close up shaky cam action shot's. They don't work - look rubbish - distract the audience - and unfortunately this film is full of them.

Daniel Craig is still good value as Bond, though. However it's a definite wait till the DVD which is my advice.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Reinventing Bond
coolelvisguy15 November 2008
The only thing that i have read from any review is how much they miss the old Bond formula. As much as I am a fan of the Bond series(i own the collection) I am pleased that it has taken a different direction. Honestly, how much do you enjoy watching the same character and formula through 20 movies?! I'll be honest, Quantum of Solace is not the best Bond movie ever. But i enjoyed it very much. As an action movie, it rocks the screen and brings an excitement not scene in a while. While the plot is not the strongest and most interesting, it makes sense...if you pay attention. The weakest points in the movie are where there are action scenes just thrown in for the sake of making excitement.

But the reason i gave the movie a nine, is because it is a sequel! For the first time in Bond history, a direct sequel. I could actually see a change in Bond. It is fun to see a character evolve. Some people claim that character transitions are rushed. mostly because of time constraints. I felt that the small levels of change will ultimately lead up to the Bond that all of the fanatics are desperate to see(even after 20 movies of him). But in the "Daniel Craig Saga of Bond", Quantum is certainly essential in the reinvention of the worlds favorite spy.

My advice, watch Casino Royale, make the connections while watching Quantum, enjoy the evolution. Enjoy the closing of one storyline, and the possible(you be the judge) opening of another. This is just the second act.
7/10
Camille: There is something horribly efficient about you.
bombersflyup16 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is better than I recall and perhaps Craig's best portrayal.

I'm not in favour of the Craig films and even though filled with action, this one has some depth. The opening sequence isn't strong though, followed by dull credits and the only annoying song of the entire series, by Jack White and Alicia Keys. A bit of contemplation and self-reflection for Bond here though. All the characters are decent, Olga Kurylenko quite alluring as our Bond girl. Gemma Arterton's character's death akin to that of Shirley Eaton in "Goldfinger." Villains could have been slightly better.
6/10
Cry me a river, and while you're at it . . .
oscaralbert8 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
. . . move it underground without anyone noticing, so I can sell it back to the weepers. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is oddly Q-less, with the "Bond. James Bond." line long gone, and the iconic gun barrel Bond view tacked on as a closing credits afterthought. Perversely, Agent 007's martini recipe has been over-complicated here. Sure, there's a car chase, a foot chase, a boat chase, a plane chase, and something big implausibly exploding at the end, but it's mostly a case of "been there, done that." Worse yet, many scenes are shamelessly cannibalized from earlier Bonds, none more jarring than Bond playmate "Strawberry Fields'" oily spoof of Shirley Eaton ("Jill Masterson")'s spray-painted demise in GOLDFINGER. One of the few mercies is that the loosely described "Quantum" criminal syndicate is NOT made into an awkward acronym here along the lines of S.M.E.R.S.H. or S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (HOW could the scriptwriters pass on the obvious "Quiet Usurpers of Aquatic National Treasure Using Murder"?) About the only original passage in the story's uncharacteristically brief 106-minute running time is the shootout during a violent scene from the opera TOSCA. The proverbial "Fat Lady" may not be singing to denote the end of the Bond series yet, but you can hear her loudly clearing her throat.
In-depth study of the mind of someone called James Bond
tonytse08146 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The first time I saw QofS in cinema, I just thought, "this time there isn't a daring stunt that I'll recall several times for years to come". Watching it again when it finally arrived at free TV, I start to know what the film is actually about. We used to rate this film so low because we carried wrong expectation (2 hours of top-class escapist entertainment), and rate it with wrong standards (the classic Bond formula and elements from previous 20 films).

QofS is actually a in-depth study of the mind of someone called James Bond. He is in great sorrow because his girlfriend from the last movie was killed. The desert symbolize how dry his mind is. As he is unhappy, we audiences are also forbidden to have fun. Secondly, this film is about the relationship between Mr. Bond and a woman suppose to be his mother, or M. in short. Holy god!! what wrong approach is this!! if we want character study, we'll see an Oscar best picture. Also, a Bond who torture himself for losing a woman simply violate his own character.

Bond films should always make the impossible believable, we believe the oil tanker in THE SPY WHO LOVE ME swallows three submarines. But in QofS, even if the final climax take place at a real hotel in the middle of desert, I just think it is CGI for exterior plus interior done in studios. And not to say the dullest brownish title sequence ever, shown with a song that sounds more like quarrel than singing. Even worse, viewing it again I know what's wrong with Dominic Greene, he recalls me of... Howard the Duck!!

Maybe the saving grace of QofS for me is outside the movie. I attended the ceremony part of the charity premiere at HK, raising fund for the Wai Yin Association, a charity organization consists of former Miss Hong Kong. The ceremony took place at an open area next to the box office of the cinema, even people just pass-by could witness the ceremony. I could not afford the premiere ticket, but managed to collect one or two from the audiences (this was the only merit of the brief 106 minutes duration, if this is another ROYALE we had to wait for half hour longer). I will always refer QofS as "Wai Yin James Bond".

QofS has become the top three "chicken bone" Bond films ever (a Chinese saying: tasteless to eat, but a pity to throw away), joining LICENCE TO KILL and MAN WITH GOLDEN GUN. The filmmakers spent two movies to do the "realistic" Bond experiment, and I join the majority of the 100 reviews read here: please return us the normal and traditional Bond in Bond 23 which celebrate golden anniversary. (however, if Sam Menders really sign up to direct, maybe the worst is yet to come...)
6/10
Just a bland experience
aheaven200511 April 2021
Blurry stakes, too much action scenes and an average storyline in general. Hard to understand how you can make this movie after the great Casino Royale.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Conundrum of film
MovieJunkie197627 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
**Warning! Spoiler Information Inside!**

After a masterful re-boot , the writer's at EON follow through in force quickly penning a sequel stylized follow-up and release Quantum of Solace(2008).

Picking up where Casino Royale(2006)left off, Bond delivers the nefarious Mr. White to the waiting hands of M (Judi Dench).Together they unearth a network run by wealthy socialite Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).Further events uncover a more sinister agency at work.

This film is a continuation piece except it's writing clearly reflects an internal conflict. The clear general feel of foreboding that existed in "From Russia with Love"(1963) exists here , yet is clearly muted , and one wonders why if the intent is a reintroduction of SPECTRE. The Plot is not all that unbelievable , a wealthy billionaire selling thrones to those who want them in third world nations. As interesting as this all is the film can deviate wildly into the personal whims of Bond himself.It all comes off fuzzy in the end. I have heard in fact two distinct interpretations of this film in conversation.

It is a pretty considerable feat to create such a bad medium in film as too , have your audience receive two distinct messages upon which they may discuss. This indicates problems in both writing and direction. Though Marc Forster is a first time bond director in this case.

Note: Alica Keys Bond theme , was recorded after the failed attempt of Amy Winehouse and Mark Ronson to produce one.

???

Three stars(of 5.)
6/10
Despite its impressive action set-pieces and solid performances, "Quantum of Solace" staggers through a drought of creativity.
DapperDuck71324 February 2020
Movie-goers are not kind to "Quantum of Solace." The second Daniel Craig film sandwiched between two of the greatest movies in the entire Bond canon and crippled by the Writers Guild of America strike is considered by many to be one of the worst James Bond movies ever made.

I don't hate "Quantum of Solace", the performances are pretty good across the board and the action set-pieces are thrilling (even if they're ruined by the abysmal editing.) It's not a great film, as it has a heap of flaws beneath its shiny exterior, but "Quantum of Solace" is definitely not one of my least favourite 007 films.

The cast in "Quantum of Solace" are mostly great. Daniel Craig is excellent as ever, he brings a boiling rage to the character whilst also excelling in the moments that require him to be more suave and charismatic. Dame Judi Dench continues to be exceptional as M, laying the groundwork for her magnificent character arc in "Skyfall." I also really like Olga Kurylenko as main Bond girl Camille, her arc throughout the story is dark and compelling and she has one really captivating character moment during the finale. It's also worth mentioning that Jeffrey Wright is easily the best Felix Leiter in the series, he's cool, likeable and has phenomenal chemistry with Craig. Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene (the main villain of the movie) is... ok. He's weedy and understated but he's also kind of boring. He's not very memorable and he's not scary or intimidating, so he might not be an awful Bond villain, but he's undoubtedly one of the least remarkable.

The action in "Quantum of Solace" is one of its saving graces, everything from the nerve-shredding opening car chase to the superb plane dogfight and the explosive finale are violent, dramatic and stirring. We'll get to how the editing affects the experience of watching these sequences later, but despite that, the action in "Quantum of Solace" is incredible.

Unfortunately, that's where my compliments for "Quantum" end, so let's move onto the negatives.

My biggest criticism with "Quantum of Solace" is it's absolutely atrocious editing. The action sequences are choppy and borderline unwatchable at times due to the constant cuts. It's a shame because it's clear that a lot of hard work went into making the various fight scenes and chases as exciting as possible, but when the camera is bouncing and spinning all over the place it's really difficult to enjoy the sequences. The use of so much shaky-cam and quick-cut editing was an obvious attempt to capture the gritty style of the "Jason Bourne" movies, but "Casino Royale" still managed to create hard-hitting, Bourne-esque action without resorting to cinematography that looks like the filmmakers placed a camera in a washing machine!

There are also some bizarrely pretentious moments of editing scattered throughout "Quantum", such as weird fade-outs just before the third act and the overly flashy and distracting location title cards. I don't mind directors bringing their own style to a Bond film, as "Skyfall" proved that a 007 instalment can be both an adrenaline-pumping thrill-ride and a magnificently constructed Oscar-contender, but the visual style of this film is so scattered and confused that the strange editing choices really stick out.

I think the main criticism most viewers have with "Quantum of Solace" is how messy its narrative is. We watch the characters go from location to location but there isn't really any sense of purpose to the proceedings and the antagonist's main objective is downright dull, which causes almost all of the scenes featuring the villains to become instantly forgettable.

Its common knowledge that the production of "Quantum of Solace" was a disaster as the film was made during the Writers' Strike, which completely upended the movie's production (Daniel Craig had to write sections of the script himself.) So even though the dialogue is unimaginative and the story is confused, it's understandable why the film is the way it is.

One of the main staples of the "007" franchise are the original songs that play over the opening titles, performed by some of the most popular artists of the day. With songs like "Nobody Does it Better", "GoldenEye" and more recently Billie Eilish's "No Time to Die", these songs do a terrific job of building hype for the films and by tying into the underlying themes of said films. Sadly, Jack White and Alicia Keys's "Another Way to Die" is a mixed bag of a song. I'll be honest, I really like the electric guitar rendition of the Bond theme at the start of the song (I actually think all of the background music is quite good), but the lyrics make absolutely no sense and the "singing" from Keys and White sounds more like a domestic feud than a James Bond song. It doesn't help that the opening titles that accompany "Another Way to Die" are incredibly generic and bland, whereas "Casino Royale" featured a stunning montage of playing card symbols integrated with some awesome animated fight sequences, the "Quantum" titles feel like a step backwards.

The last thing I want to talk about concerning "Quantum of Solace" is a deep problem that runs throughout the whole film, that being that this just doesn't feel like a James Bond film. It may feature an Aston Martin, a secret evil organization and a megalomaniac antagonist, but none of the signature panache and sophistication that you'd expect from this series is to be found here. "Casino Royale" did such a stellar job of taking the established traditions of the Bond series (e.g. the "Shaken, not stirred" line and the gun barrel scene) and giving them a contemporary update, whilst also staying true to what made those tropes so fantastic in the first place. This film, on the other hand, doesn't use many of the iconic cornerstones of the franchise, which makes "Quantum" feel more like a Sylvester Stallone revenge flick than a bombastic Bond movie.

In conclusion, "Quantum of Solace" is a film with some outstanding aspects, the performances are note-worthy and the action is splendid. It's unfortunately undermined however by the poor editing choices, weak story and lack of Bondian flair, which brings it well below the high-bar set by "Casino Royale." It's not a terrible movie, but it is a disappointing one.
4/10
You need nausea medication to watch it...
because-of-him30 December 2017
I only give it a 4 because of the nice scenes. The movie reminds me of Blair Witch Project, which I could not watch for more than 3 minutes. Every time there is a flight or fight scene, the camera moves up and down, right and left, wobbles, spins, and more, that the viewer feels like there is an actual earthquake, tornado, and cyclone happening at the same time. The other major problem with the movie is in seeing the bruises on the actors that would normally have a person cringe in pain. Instead, the bruised actors show no signs of injury. The last problem is that this feels like the 50th 007 film. Enough, already. Has Hollywood never heard of sequel fatigue?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
At least better than Daniel Craig's debut
henrycoles921 May 2020
There is more action worthy of a spy movie here than there was in "Casino Royale." Still, there is nothing particularly overawing about the spy work. There is no question that "Mission Impossible," Ethan Hawke and Tom Cruise will remain far superior to James Bond and Daniel Craig.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A mixed bag; the actors and the character bits deliver, but the action sequences (mostly) do not
gridoon20229 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Quantum Of Solace" opens rather poorly: a potentially great car chase in Italy is undermined by the lack of establishing shots, the jerky, rapid editing and the ultra-tight close-ups. Sadly, (after an uninspired song & titles sequence), this pattern continues for the rest of the action sequences: the stunts are great and the special effects convincing, but when you can't see who is doing what to whom, they feel like a bit of a waste. And the first half of QOS seems to follow the globe-trotting minimal-dialogue action-action-action pattern of "Tomorrow Never Dies". Thankfully, after Marc Forster gets this initial bombardment of action out of his system, he settles down a little and the film becomes more balanced. Forster is considered a character director, not an action director, and he proves that here: the small character moments are handled much better than the big slam-bang action sequences.

Daniel Craig forms, along with George Lazenby, the duo of the most physical Bond actors to date. One stunt in particular, jumping from one building to the top of a moving bus to another building, is straight out of a Jackie Chan movie ("Police Story 2", I believe). He is also good in the serious dramatic moments, but he still needs some work on how to milk his comic dialogue. Olga Kurylenko is a very good Bond girl. She is beautiful, tough but not superhumanly so, and shares many common traits with Bond (a dark past, an angry mood, guns expertise, not to mention a knack for coming out of a battle with a lot of cuts!). I actually felt a stronger connection at the end between her and Bond than between Bond and Vesper. The scene where she is surrounded by flames and scared and Bond tries to comfort her works better than the similar "shower scene" with Bond and Vesper in CR. Gemma Arterton is a wonderful secondary Bond girl, but severely underused; in any case, every minute she is on the screen represents the strongest link of QOS to the past Bond movies. Mathieu Amalric is a major upgrade on the completely unthreatening Le Chiffre; Amalric has the perfect accent and facial features for his slimy role, and he's not afraid to go one-on-one against Bond when the circumstances demand it. Jesper Christensen steals the film with only 2 scenes, just like he did in CR; he also has the best line in the film: "Tosca is not for everyone!". More of Mr. White, please. To say that Judi Dench and Giancarlo Giannini are as solid as ever would be redundant, so let me just add that Jeffrey Wright makes unquestionably the deepest Felix Leiter that has ever appeared in the series. Probably the only disappointment in the cast is Anatole Taubman as Elvis, who is only memorable for his laughable wig (I've seen the film twice now and I honestly don't even remember what happens to him!).

Is it better than Casino Royale? In my opinion it has a better girl, a better villain and better dialogue (no "I have no armor left" or "little fingers" here), but Martin Campbell's direction was smoother and less pretentious, and the poker game was terrific. I give them both a 6/10. Let's hope Craig's third Bond film finds the ideal balance between all the necessary Bond ingredients - the balance that no Bond movie after GoldenEye has quite achieved.
7/10
The film's one big action scene...
grenmonkey26 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 22nd Bond -film Quantum of Solace (2008) continues right where the previous one, Casino Royale (2006) left off. James Bond (Daniel Craig) want's to find justice and reason for the loss of his love – and does everything in his powers to get to that point and reveal the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

The film's one big action scene with some brief story moments in between; what sounds horrible on the paper actually works really well on the screen and Quantum of Solace races itself above all the previous instalments of the franchise – and seriously competes against other action/thriller movies, which is something unique and marvelous for a Bond movie to accomplish. Though I have to say that it doesn't hurt if you watch the previous film in advance or at least read through the plot synopsis of it to get into the movie's story from the get-go – but you'll do well also without it.

This is the second time Daniel Craig steps into the shoes of the legendary English secret agent and he really does a good job with it. As an character actor he's in a whole different level than the previous actors who have played the role before and in here - in some of the more mellow scenes - he get's to show those skills of his a bit. The role is still the same but he really has brought something different and refreshing into the character and it shows on the screen. And it's more than his blonde hair and blue eyes... Yeah, the movie is very different in all – and the director and the producers are the ones who call the shots – but still Daniel has found the best elements of the character and manages to make the movie that much more interesting.

The supporting cast is good. Olga Kurylenko (Camille) does a solid performance, as does Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter) and Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields) is a great flash of the old Bond girls from the 60's although she actually really isn't playing one – but she looks and acts the part. Judi Dench (M) is great as always – balancing nicely between the caring and malignant mother -figure. The bad guys are a bit of a let-down, I'm especially getting a bit bored of the ordinary looking, non-threatening master minds like Dominic Greene (played by Mathieu Amalric) here, he resembles Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) from Casino Royale a bit too much and I hope they go after another kind of an approach in the next film – before it get's too repetitive.

Also have to mention the great soundtrack: from Jack White's main theme to the scores for the most vicious action sequences, it all sounds good. This the first time I've ever said this about a Bond movie.

The film's a bit scarce when it comes down to the story (and it's lack of depth) but the great action sequences and performances from the cast make up for it. Also they've kept the running time just right; the film's a great ride to sit through. James Bond is for the first time really heading into the right direction. 3/4
2/10
So Long, Mister Bond. It Was Nice Knowing You.
SANFRANFILMFAN15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie has the feel of a "paint by numbers" action movie and tries to incorporate all the facile elements of a typical Mission Impossible or a Bourne movie.

But, other than having a central character named James Bond who appears to be able to kill his way out of any situation and brings with him an extensive wardrobe (although you never see him carry a suitcase as he travels all over the world and destroys anything he wears in the ubiquitous action sequences), it contains none of the fun, suspense, gadgets, buildup, romance, humor and intrigue of what I would expect of a typical James Bond movie.

Look at it this way: change the main character's name and all you have is a mediocre action romp lacking continuity and any trace of an interesting plot. The writers introduce the idea of a mega conspiracy as a minor subplot early on, but wait until you find out THAT is.
3/10
Quantum of Disgrace
chasers198723 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, what do you think of when you think of Bond? Good action sequences, gadgets, catch phrases, and pretty girls, right? And I guess the girls in this movie are pretty in the five minutes that they're on the screen. And catch phrases? Yeah right. The script writer couldn't figure out a way to include "The names Bond, James Bond" or "Shaken, not stirred". Gadgets? His car wasn't even bullet proof.

My least favorite by far are the action sequences, but I suppose they were directed quite well. There is no better way to make an action sequence other than taking two identical twins so you can't tell who is fighting who, dimming the lights so you can barely see, and then changing angle every four and a half seconds to- well,I don't really really know why they do it.

Final verdict: 3*
8/10
An Entertaining Sequel
Crannicus_Maximus5 May 2009
Most die-hard fans of the Bond Franchise have always been incredibly divided, their loyalties pledged to one of the Bonds or another. Connery, who was known for his suave, sophisticated Bond brought action and a touch of lightheartedness to the role, while fans of Roger Moore's rendering would say that he added a greater degree of comic relief. Brosnan was lively, and Dalton ruthless, while Lazenby's one-shot appearance is generally seen as the low point of the series.

In his second outing as the iconic super-spy, Craig has again proved that he can masterfully combine almost all of the better elements of the five prior Bonds. His wit, though dry, is still present (albeit in limited quantities). His dogged pursuit of a goal and his recklessness hearkens back to the days of Dalton, while his emotionally-charged drive for revenge touches on that human side which fell flat in Lazenby's hands. And the return of an overarching, multi-film criminal organization is a welcome addition to the storyline which has, for the most part, struggled since the collapse of Soviet Russia.

And while "Quantum of Solace" is far from the best Bond, it is definitely entertaining, featuring the customary, climactic battle with the latest of super-villains (again an enterprising, if not unscrupulous, business tycoon); another alluring femme fatale; and a number of hurdles over which the titular character must leap.

In essence, it is a strong move in the right direction for the series, tapping not our fear of a menacing rival with a face, but our fear of the enemy without one.
7/10
"When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go."
morrison-dylan-fan13 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having been amazed by viewing Casino Royale (2006) the day before,I found it to overshadow QoS when I first saw that film on the big screen, with QoS being less smooth than Casino, leading to me wanting to revisit the film on its own,when my memory of CR was less fresh.

Getting the Daniel Craig 007 films for fellow IMDber Red-Barracuda's birthday,and with a revisit having been on my "To do" list for years (!) I at last embraced the solace.

View on the film:

Revealed years later that the main draft of the script was completed just 2 hours before the US Writers Strike began, leading to the production unable to request re-writes, that ended up being done the director and the lead, who caused the movie to be more linked to Casino Royale than originally planned.

The disjointed building in Michael G. Wilson and Paul Haggis screenplay, (who re-wrote the credited Neal Purvis and Robert Wade's first draft from scratch) actually benefits the film,thanks to it capturing the disjointed state of Bond, torn between a dour desire for revenge ignited by the death of his love, with a thrilling blood rush to dive head-first into a mission against the murky dealings of Dominic Greene,and Bond Girl Camille, who is kept tantalisingly ambiguous over who side she is on.

Whilst the production issues were kept undercover in the script, they become visible in the action set-pieces, where co-writer/director Marc Forster and editors Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson piece Bond's fights together with a staple gun, clipping agitated half a second edits on grinding shaky cam.

Taking a completely different approach to the non-Action majority of the film, Forster & cinematographer Roberto Schaefer eye a excellent jet-set Euro Spy atmosphere, stylishly gliding on reflective surfacing mirroring 007's espionage activities,cracking on the sun-kissed locations, dried up from Greene's vicious water business dealings.

Opening a box which she finds contains info on assassinating her,Olga Kurylenko gives a terrific turn as Camille,whose Bond Girl glamour shines by punching into the fight scenes, which are rolled by Kurylenko with a lingering mistrust, whilst Mathieu Amalric gives a tasty, slippery take on boo-hiss baddie Greene.

Injured three times on the set, Daniel Craig gives a wonderful, gritty performance in his second mission, with Craig recoiling Bond's thirst for revenge,which is threaded by Craig with a growing determination to make this mission a success on the cards.
7/10
Decent, lacking something in plot.
innersmiff31 October 2008
This is a decent, if not spectacular Bond film which is subject to some incredible stunts and action sequences but falls short in the plot department. A big problem is that it doesn't build the story gradually to a thrilling climax. It basically follows the structure of a bit of chat followed by an action sequence and then some dialogue again. This can be a tad laborious at times , clearly a film designed so that one can demonstrate their home cinema. Rather than Bond saving the world as is the tradition, this is a revenge story. It succeeds to an extent but doesn't quite satisfy as a Bond film. One can't help but think it is just a filler between Casino Royale and the more traditional type of Bond.

All of this being said, the film is quite entertaining hence the high score. The action sequences are well choreographed although the hand-held "Bourne style" camera-work is tough to follow at times. The Bond girls are cool and do actually have a personality, particularly Gemma Arterton's character. Daniel Craig is a fine actor, his physical presence speaks louder than his words. Also worth nothing, in more emotional scenes he is subtle where he could over do-it; this makes the empathy with him stronger.

I could go on further but I just wanted to give reader's a short overview. I give this film 6.5 out of 10. Rounding up to 7 because I'm a Bond fan. Not bad.
3/10
A bad, bad movie - don't give in to the hype!
Playitagainsam13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Take away the Bond brand name recognition, change the main character's name to something else, and try to pitch it to the studios... you'll see how you'll be laughed out of the lot! What can I say... there's much hyperbole about this film, most of it coming from people who call it "spectacular", "Bond reboot" etc. Hogwash! Craig continues to be a thug, there's no REAL resolution at the end (stay tuned for Bond 23!), most of the action scenes are filmed in that horrible "hyperkinetic" style that makes you go "huh? what did just happened?" (this got really old with the Bourne movies), and the plot is just bad, bad, bad. Not to mention that the bad guy is an environmentalist (!??)... oooh, how scary! Watch "Sahara" for a much better take on "environmentalists turned bad"! Come to think about it, there are some unnerving similarities between the two movies, starting with the fact that in both cases the bad guy is a French dude with a bad accent. Except that "Sahara" was a fun and pleasant popcorn flick, while "QoS" pretends to be a dark and brooding contemporary film.

It's sad to see that the studios are so desperate to keep the Bond franchise alive and make some extra cash on the back of the public. Be forewarned...this is probably the worst Bond ever - worse than anything you've ever seen in the series, even the incoherent "Casino Royale" of the 60s. Oh, and the title song (main theme) is also the worst thing I've heard since Lulu offended our ears with "The Man With the Golden Gun".

It used to be that the Bond films had great locations, wonderful stunts, beautiful women and impressive gadgetry. Not anymore. All we have now is a pumped-up dude who beats up people and tosses dead friends in garbage bins. Sad! And what happened to Marc Forster? he is clearly able to make a good film, as evidenced by "Monster's Ball"... heck, even "Finding Neverland"... but this?
6/10
Squandered potential
Mr-Fusion21 February 2015
"Quantum of Solace" isn't a great movie (by any stretch), but it does have a few things going for it.

One, it picks up right after "Casino Royale". I like seeing this in movies, and as such, it hits the ground running. And it features both Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton (hello, nurses!). Also, Bond's the real villain here, so consumed with rage and revenge thirst that he barrels through everything and everyone. It's a novel twist for a different kind of OO7 movie. The downside is that Dominic Greene is still a hanger-on for most of the movie; dull as dishwater, that one. As far as this movie's concerned, the idea works better on paper.

But then there are the action scenes, one after the next, each edited to within an inch of its life. Images coming at you fast and furious, leaving no time to get a sense of geography in a fight. Both frustrating an exhausting.

There was probably no chance of living up to the promise of the preceding movie's ending, but cutting out the shakycam would've helped unbelievably. As it stands, There are sections of this movie that I like, but it loses ground by the third act. But there's a pretty great final few minutes, which keeps this from being wholly forgettable. But only just.

6/10
3/10
Pure Crap!
maestro7PL16 November 2008
I just returned from a screening of Quantum of Solace. Boy was I disappointed--and so was the audience. Nowhere do they advertise going in that this is a direct sequel to 2006's Casino Royale. Many of the characters are the same. So if you did not see that movie, or did not re-screen it recently, you will DEFINITELY BE LOST in the plot, with characters that are never explained. Those who claim otherwise are very familiar with Casino Royale or they are lying. How in the world would anyone know who "Vesper" was if you didn't see the first movie? This movie should be more correctly titled "Casino Royale 2." The only reason they didn't name it that is that those who did not see the earlier film might stay away, and they don't want to lose those extra millions of dollars in ticket sales.

Whose idea was it to get an art-house director like Marc Forster to direct the latest Bond action flick? The man knows nothing about action films or achieving the correct tone of a Bond film.

The film is poorly shot, and the action scenes are so quickly edited with so many close-ups, that it is literally impossible to follow the characters. In one early scene, a major character appears shot to death from what we can see visually, but she is very much alive in the next scene.

The opening song by Alicia Keyes is probably one of the worst title songs in Bond history. The Bond girls we have come to expect are nothing special in the looks department. The cool cars we have come to expect are nearly unseen due to poor cinematography and editing. The sense of fun that used to pervade the Bond films is totally missing. There is little to no character development. The story does not engage the audience. There is only one set piece worth remembering, involving two planes. This is also supposed to be an early Bond picture chronologically, or else the plot involving M and Bond makes no sense, yet Daniel Craig looks tired in the role.

The studio must have bought off the major critics who are somehow giving this film a positive review. This film does not deserve the money it is raking in. It makes "hash" of a once great series of films. If you want a movie "thrill-ride" that actually thrills, see "Eagle Eye" instead--it is better in every way.
6/10
Overly Complicated For A Bond Film
fwomp20 May 2009
Daniel Craig IS the new James Bond. He cemented that position with his opening volley in the 2006 release of CASINO ROYALE. A bit more hard edged. A bit more gloomy. But just as dangerous, Craig gives us a Bond we're probably going to enjoy for several years to come. We get the same tough guy here in QUANTUM OF SOLACE but with a story that has problems.

The good is that it picks up right where we left off with Casino Royale. We learn that a secret organization threatens the very government that Bond works for. Even to the point of shots being fired at M (Judi Dench, CRANFORD) by one of her own double-00s.

Bond, still pining and hating his old love Vesper, finds himself enjoying his work too much. Killing is becoming a habit ...and M and her superiors don't like it. But when Bond begins to dig up dirt on political higher ups, M pays quiet attention. It all starts in a third world country and Bond's fascination with a beautiful girl (no surprise there) named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). She's after the man who killed her family. Bond's after whoever it was who shot at M. Their two paths intersect in an unusual way: Bond feeling sympathy for her and wanting to help her get revenge. Her feeling a unique pull towards Bond's unflagging search for truth, regardless of the cost. All of this is taken up by an evil man named Mr. Greene (Mathieu Amalric, MUNICH) who's trying to control the world's most valuable resource (I won't give that away) while giving super-politicos whatever they want. But Bond is on to him, and with his help, Bond aids Camille in getting her revenge, while also getting Bond closer to Mr. Greene.

The biggest issue with the film, however, is the multiple threads that intertwine with Bond's actions. They are confusing in the extreme, making the watcher wonder what, exactly, is going on at various times. For instance, during a scene when Bond has to kill a man who happens to work for the British government, we never learn why this man got involved in the first place nor even who he was working for (clandestinely speaking). There's also a hotel that runs on fuel cells that goes boom! yet we don't know why this hotel is out in the middle of nowhere nor what fuel cells have to do with the storyline (yes, I know that fuel cells run on hydrogen, which can be gotten from water, but it still doesn't explain why it was out in a desert and not, say, along a river valley or near the ocean). There are other threads that also lead nowhere, but I'll leave you to discover what they were should you choose to watch this.

But make no mistake, it IS an action-packed, 007 flick in the vein of what we've come to expect from Bond films. But it's a bit overly complicated. Something to be aware of.
7/10
Plot less and too short, but I like it.
gainestillinger21 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace begins at the end of Casino Royale (Craig is still driving an Aston Martin despite it having been trashed in CR!?) and Bond is out for answers… or revenge, or both. He is going to chase down Mr White and those Quantum bad guys and beat the truth out of them, even if it means jetting from Italy to London to Haiti to Bolivia to Austria to Chile and to Panama (not in that order). Even if it means killing everyone that he meets in a suspicious camera-and-editing style homage to the Bourne trilogy. Even if it means bedding the female officer ordered to bring him back because he's gone 'rogue' and further defying M's orders. EVEN if it means getting involved in foot, car, boat, plane and bike chases (Marc Forster (dir.) wanted a bit of everything, apparently, just not a real plot).

The Bondy baddie is fabulous. He is Mr Green (Matthieu Almaric) – a government toppling, cruel-tongued sissy boy who couldn't fight his way out of an open door. The Bondy girlies are gorgeous (he only beds one, the aforementioned female agent, Gemma Arterton). The more significant of the two, Camile, played by Olga Kurylenko, is a Bolivian spy also out for revenge. She wants to kill the General that Mr Green is making the deal of the century with for a natural resource that will make the Quantum organisation rich beyond imagination. Camile wants the General because he killed her family and Bond wants Green so that he can find out why Vesper betrayed him. Two messed up characters, two acts of revenge and we get to see a lot of sh*t blown up by people in beautiful clothes in exotic locations. Great stuff.

Many have criticised this film for being plot less and too short. However, I say that what this film does well is realise a longer vision. The plot and character development were both done in Casino Royale so this film is all about revenge and endgame, no matter what lengths Bond has to go to. Probably, Broccoli and co. should have filmed CR and QoS back-to-back and released them within weeks of each other, but considering the current crisis they are facing, this point seems quite redundant.
3/10
A very disappointing Casino Royale follow up.
So....the long awaited Casino Royale sequel is here and i was very disappointed. This movie has no story, plot holes and a terrible villain and Bond girl. I felt like i was watching a very messy wannabe Bourne movie. Maybe Bond should start feeling like Bond again.

If you don't care about story or plot holes and just want to see action scenes all 1 hour and 46 minutes then you should love this movie. All up i think there were about 50 words spoken in this movie.

I have nothing against Daniel Craig but watching him play Bond was like watching one of the Queens guards. He was so serious. He really needs to loosen up.

Say hello to the new bond girl Olga Kurylenko. What happened to the charm that Eva Green brought us in the first one. Overall i say that the acting was OK. Daniel Craig is good but too serious and Olga Kurylenko didn't catch my attention one bit.

I don't recommend it. But if your a Bond fan you'll probably go see it anyway so it doesn't matter what i say. This was bad which is sad because it really had the potential to be better then Casino Royale. It felt like the filmmakers didn't care how the good the movie was. Really a movie doesn't have to be good to bring in money and we all know this will no matter how bad it is.

3/10
7/10
Maybe not the best Bond, but it sure beats Octopussy & Moonraker!
Redcitykev13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I picked a horrid, wet English Thursday afternoon to catch the latest Bond movie in my local cinema, and, whilst not maybe being the best Bond movie of all time it was certainly entertaining enough to brighten up the nasty old afternoon that was going on outside! At first I was a little put off by the start - no familiar figure firing a shot into the camera lens - but it soon become clear that what we were watching was the immediate continuation from Casino Royale. Here I found myself praising the director and writers for treating us with respect, no 10 précis of what happening in the earlier film, they knew its core audience would be au fait enough to be up-to-speed with events, and soon we were into the excellent title sequence (and, yes, I like the song!), then - WHAM!- the action begins.

The action sequences are, as one might expect from a Bond movie, outstanding, although I felt that one or two of them went on for a little too long - even Bond needs to pause for breath once in a while! As for the story line, I found that a little on the weak and often muddled side - I thought that maybe the revenge mission Bond had set for himself occasionally got in the way of the main story line of destabilising a country for its oil, or not as the case maybe. The villains here did not seem as evil as say Blofeld, and the mystery organisation certainly could never touch SMERSH for pure nastiness! That said the story did keep the movie going at a real pace, and the relatively short running time (for a Bond film at least) whipped by.

One thing I did find fun was spotting the inter Bond references - the most obvious one being, of course, Goldfinger (here more like Oilfinger!) Others, like Live and Let Die (the coffins in Port Au Prince - yes, yes, I know the "funeral" in Live and Let Die took place in New Orleans, but what the hey!), the Diamonds Are Forever with the lift fight, and a couple of others that escape me at the moment! This may not be a Bond to rate with the true greats of the series like Goldfinger, From Russia With Love or, dare I say it, Casino Royale, but it is certainly much better than the Bond of dross like Octopussy or Moonraker. Personally I would place this Bond alongside those enjoyable, if sightly forgettable, ones like Live and Let Die, On Her Majesty's Secret Service (the most underrated Bond) and Diamonds Are Forever.

A final point, a friend of mine hadn't been to see a Bond movie since the early 1980's and was waiting all film for THAT famous line "The name's Bond...", but... Hey, maybe next outing for Britain's finest!
6/10
not as good as casino Royale
disdressed1226 March 2011
this Bond film is much darker than Casino Royale,(which i thought was brilliant)the previous one.Bond is it's also the only one that is a continuation of a previous Bond film,as far as i know.this one has a fair amount of action,which are all well done,but ti also has its slow spots.the storyline is not as fleshed as i thought it could have been.there are some characters that had very little to do.however,i still enjoyed the film.i just don't feel it was on the same level of Casino Royale.i would still recommend it as worth watching.but lets hope the next Bond film is an improvement.for me,Quantum of Solace is a 6/10
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Is all about action and Daniel Craig
mirwais-orbit27 December 2008
Well, for sure Quantum Of Solace is not as well written than Casino Royale. In fact, Quantum is all about action and not so worried about a plot. There are some bad and mixed reviews out there blaming the movie for not being so good like Casino, and I really feel sad about these people because if you're going to watch a James Bond movie then you're expecting great entertainment, and first of all, the movie is pure entertainment from the beginning to the end.

Casino Royale is one of those James Bond-exceptions that is more than an action movie, being quite a piece of art in the genre. That happens in every each new 007 generation, the same happened to GoldenEye, and the same happened years before it and before-before it. But anyway... the new 007 is the closest to the best thing we could ever expect.

The great thing about the new 007 is - of course - Daniel Craig. For sure he gives another respectable depth to the character. James Bond is not and only that womanizer anymore, he's more than that, he's much more real now than that flirting face and thousands of killing artifacts hidden everywhere in his nice outfit and perfect car. People now go to see 007 running in an old Volkswagen, kicking asses like a real someone and feel the pain every time he punches or is being punched and thrill with every dangerous moment he gives. And now also feel his inner pain, the pain of a killer, the pain of someone that lost a love and a life, the eyes of someone that never sleeps and kill the bad guys in the search for a self peace that he lost somewhere. Now I ask you: when, a few years ago, could you imagine that 007 would be all that?

So, that's why I think that, even Quantum Of Solace seemingly being superficial, there's no need of smart dialogs and amazing twists and turns here like Casino Royale because this one is all about James Bond discovering himself and showing us what he became after Casino Royale facts. So this is the time to see everything in and by Craig's 007's eyes. And that's it, there's no need for more, I would be completely satisfied the same way if entire movie was 007 locked in a room, because Daniel Craig gave the best personification of the character and understood perfectly what 007 is and is all about.
5/10
my notes
FeastMode26 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I felt the same way about this movie as casino royale. it had better action but some stuff i didn't like and overall not as good (2 viewings)

SPOILERS

it did have a nice mini twist that related back to the first movie. he found out that Vesper's previous boyfriend that she loved who was kidnapped and used to blackmail her, was actually hired to seduce girls who work in government intelligence to fall in love with him and then get fake-kidnapped to get intelligence information from them
6/10
A good action movie, but not up to "Bond" standard
steel_arkangel5 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not going to go in to detail, as so many people have already done this - however what I will add is from my perspective I felt that whilst the action was good - if not very samey (most of the action was just a repeat of either C.R or Bourne) - the story was quite weak.

Problems:

1. The opening sequence was very flat - what happened to the big Bond stunts?! 2. I thought there were going to be more gadgets?!! This is BOND!! 3. What was the point in introducing half the characters when you don't do anything with them?! 4. So you have a ruthless, evil, secret corporation, hell bent on world domination, run by cold blooded killers - the plan? Take over the countries water supply and sell it back to the locals at a hugely inflated price... Damn that could be any high street company (every little helps!) Weak... very weak... 5. Could M please not spend the whole movie complaining about Bond killing people - he has a licence to kill, not a licence to rough up a bit but keep alive. 6. Could she also not just assume that Bond is guilty of whatever the local police report back (I mean it begs the question, do you give everyone you don't really trust a gun?!) Perhaps I could suggest actually asking him for his side of the story?!? 7. Q? I don't think I need to say any more! 8. I missed the point where Bond took the hulk super strength potion - Pulling a steel door handle off?!! Do you have any idea how much force you'd need to apply to do this!!?! 9. Where is the super hard to kill henchmen? This one seemed more like he should be in changing rooms, looking at curtain swatches?!

There were a few things I liked - Craig's performance I thought was good - I like the body in oil, (tiping it's hat tip at Goldfinger).

My overall feeling after Casino R. was that they really wanted to make everything a lot more serious, and QOS took this even further. The problems is that what makes Bond, Bond, is that he is larger than life but at the same time cool, calm, and collected.

Now yes you can argue that this isn't the Bond from the books, but we've grown up with this reinvention, and we LIKE it!! We like seeing the gadgets, we like the wise cracking, we like him getting off with the ladies.

What you've given us is to be fair, a much more accurate Bond, but then isn't this really just Bourne, and so many others that have gone before?

I'd like to finish by saying, this messing about with Bond was tried before with Timothy Dalton, and it didn't work, nor did it last.

So please, please, please... Bring back 007!!!
8/10
Bottled in Bond
hitechcleaning515 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film has an apt title. Quantum taken from the Latin derivative quantus means: "how much", and solace means: "consolation." Bond and his female protagonist, Camile, have very different agendas but share a parallel need for as much solace as they can extract from one another. Their common denominator is the elimination of Greene, and while each seeks to confront their separate personal agendas, both key off of the diligence and connective energy between them which builds faster and faster as the film spools out.

Absent Q, Moneypenny, the high tech gadgets, the one-liners and the other icons we have come to expect, this Bond excels without them. Daniel Craig is different. He is more like an English Jason Bourne. The fights, the chases, the cold blooded action are similar to Boune, however Bond is suave, sophisticated and skillful at romancing. For this Bond, womanizing is a coping strategy and not necessarily a component of the male ego as we have seen in all the other Bonds that preceded. Strawberry Fields is a touch of Fleming without doubt.

The opening car chase is without peer. I can only imagine the preparation it must have taken to put this sequence on screen. The boat chase is another very exciting, albeit difficult, series of scenes to capture. As a pilot, a DC-3 can barely maintain altitude with the critical engine out let alone enter into a steep climb in that configuration. Nevertheless, I loved that scene because out-foxing a high performance prop fighter with a lumbering old relic was really fun to watch and equally as difficult to produce.

The fight scenes are extraordinary in terms of choreography and execution. Craig is tough, brutal and persistent. Camile used her long limbs to great advantage in her tangles, and her expedient response to threats was very impressive. In short, the action sequences delivered with full thrust while the underlying drama, although somewhat difficult to follow, delved into the one constant in all Bond films: one man's thirst for power and control at the expense of others.

Greene is one of the most vile antagonists of all. He is expert at manipulating the corrupt, evading detection, and acquiring wealth by destroying the very things he claims to defend. Bond's killing sprees and his sharp vigilance lead him on a world wide adventure in sinewy back rooms, opulent hotel suites, impoverished villages and high-end biz jets. All the while Bond defies authority, makes his own rules and "will light the fuse on any explosive situation." He eventually unravels the truth.

Both Bond and Camile find their rewards. Camile by execution, and Bond by delivering a fate worse than death to one adversary and slow death in the desert to the other. Killing, as an ironic twist, is a first for Camile while Bond, who could have easily killed both targets, chooses not to allowing a just cause to flourish. All the Bond films are great in their own ways. This one is great because it breaks the mold as Bond matures and will no doubt set forth on another adventure to come.
4/10
Is it really a BOND movie?
tahir-rehman17 November 2008
My first question would be..Is it really a BOND movie? I don't think so. Its a movie, YES, but its definitely not a BOND movie. its a movie somewhere between "Transported" & "Bourne Identity" but it has nothing to do with BOND.

Now if the author/director has conveniently attempted to create a "NEW" type of BOND, then, well I am disappointed to see such a type of BOND.

Quantum of Solace is a total misuse of Daniel Craig. Quantum of Solace is even worse than Casino Royal which was just another poker movie and again not a BOND movie, but this one is way beyond disappointment.

I have given a 4 just because I like Daniel, otherwise I would have rated this as a 1, and 1 only because there is nothing below 1.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Far better then what people make it out to be
connorwburnett28 December 2019
I have only seen this film once all the way through, roughly a week ago. Beforehand I had seen segments but I had never sat down to watch the entire thing. So it's best to take my opinion with a grain of salt as it may change over time.

I was always told that Quantum of Solace was the weakest of the modern "Daniel Craig" James Bond movies, however those people could never quite tell me what they disliked about it. After seeing it for myself it's quite easy to pick out it's flaws. But Quantum had a certain direction to it which really gripped and entertained me on a similar or even higher level than Skyfall. I really do not think that this film gets the respect it deserves. The action, especially the opening, was thrilling and I didn't really notice any pacing issues.

The story following from Casino Royale was satisfyingly wrapped up as well although I must say that the ending seemed a bit out of place. If the film just had a slightly stronger villain and a more streamlined plot I believe Quantum would be a lot more beloved among James Bond fans.

I would watch it above Spectre any day.
2/10
full of sound and fury signifying nothing
andiallan7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is a very weak entry in the Bonds series.Partly because of new Bond Daniel Craig who plays Bond as a very generic action thug and partly because of the poor screenpolay, supporting actors and editing.

There are some exciting scenes at the beginning and then it falls apart.Unlike the previous Bond film it is impossible to care about one of the characters...although one of Fleming's key characters is killed for no reason and his body tossed in a skip.

Both females are dull with Gemma Arterton being irritating as well.The villain is some kind of nerd who poses no real threat to Craig so the final confrontation is bizarre.

The plot is incomprehensible and take earmuffs for the "noise " which is supposed to be a title song
8/10
Better than that crappy Casino...
TomCruiseFan9925 November 2008
First off, let me just say, I am a James Bond movie fan. When I began watching them while I was growing up, Roger Moore was Bond at the time, and since he was my first introduction to the character, he will always remain my favourite Bond. But I've always enjoyed the movies no matter who starred in them, both Dalton and Brosnan were more than capable in my opinion. Never quite got into Connery, maybe because of the 1960's settings, seemed too old school for me. That being said, I detested Casino Royale. Not because of Craig, he was okay in the role. It was just that the storyline was extremely weak (in my humble opinion). The villain was another weak point which I just peeved me off.

But still, I looked forward to Quantum of Solace, and so glad that I did, cos I thought it was brilliant. Still a bit too serious but at least the story made a tad bit more sense and had less plot holes that Casino Royale, and the villain posed an actual threat to the world.

I can understand why some people said it doesn't feel like a Bond movie, I agree with that to an extent. But it doesn't detract from the point that it was still a very good movie. The action was fast-paced and although the editing might have been done with too many quick cuts, I found it added to the exhilarating pace.

Carig was good, but he could do with some more smiling and some one-liners next time around. Jedi Dench got quite a bit of screen time this time around, and its always a pleasure to watch her on screen.

Looking forward to the next adventure, I just hope they can get back to Bond as he was, seeing that the "revenge" is now out of his system.
7/10
The Name's Craig....Daniel Craig (shaken & not stirred)
Seamus28299 January 2009
When Daniel Craig signed on as James Bond a few years back with the excellent 'Casino Royale',I thought,"Bond is back in action". When I heard he was also to star as Bond in the next chapter of J.B. (and we're not talking James Brown,here), I eagerly looked forward to it. After seeing this one, I thought, "action...this film screams ACTION!" (and sadly little more than). The James Bond series has had it's misfires before (Octopussy,anyone?), but 'Quantom Of Solace' is little more than glorified eye candy with little substance going for it. The plot concerns an angry & bitter James Bond,who is still grieving for the death of his beloved at the end of 'Royale'. The overlapping plot elements only manage to bog the already overstuffed sandwich of a screenplay even further. Besides Daniel Craig,who acts as a somewhat borderline psychotic Bond (and does it well),the film also pulls down some fine performances from the other cast members (although Jeffrey Wright seems to be unfairly wheeled in as some kind of prop,in an under used role as Felix). Despite this,I'll not toss in the towel on this series,which has weathered on for over forty years now. Handed a PG-13 rating by the MPAA, this film serves up the requisite amount of car chases (with the equally requisite car crashes),explosions,sexy goings on,and a couple of rather ghastly sights. Better luck next time.
7/10
Sort of: Casino Royale (part 2)
bowmanblue2 February 2015
Yeah, well, Quantum of Solace is the first (and possibly last) Bond movie which is actually a direct sequel to the one that went before.

Casino Royale redefined Bond for the modern age, making it grittier and darker (and dare I say more realistic?). It had a very different narrative structure, delighting some and enraging others who still pined for more gadgets and tongue-in-cheek action.

Well, Quantum picks up where Casino leaves off... literally. Less than an hour has passed between films and QoS is effectively the continuation of the story. It tries its best to be 'self-contained' and you certainly can watch it without watching Casino Royale first (but I would recommend that you don't).

And it's all good stuff. If follows the style of Casino Royale closely and most should be satisfied. However, whereas Casino Royale was met with pretty much universal praise, Quantum was labelled with phrases like 'Taking its foot off the pedal.' Casino Royale had an epic feel to it, whereas Quantum holds the - debatable - title of 'shortest ever James Bond film.' Therefore it feels less like a film in its own right and more like an afterthought for Casino Royale.

It's a good spy thriller and, if you're a fan of the 'new style' James Bond that Daniel Craig is taking the franchise, then you'll probably like it too. However, Casino Royale was a tough act to follow and QoS doesn't really live up to it.

Luckily, reviewing this after seeing its successor - Skyfall - it's only a temporary set-back. Skyfall even eclipses Casino Royale.
6/10
I'm tired of tortured Bond
cricketbat22 August 2018
A typical action movie, but not a typical Bond movie. While this film is full of explosions, chases (foot, car, boat AND plane), excitement and adventure, it's missing the novelty and newness of Casino Royale, but it's also missing the tongue-in-cheek humor of all the other Bonds - so it just felt like it was lacking something. I'm tired of tortured Bond. Bring back the confident, dry humor Bond with gadgets!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Letdown of 007
hbdave_778 November 2008
Now I am seriously not expecting this from 007 film. The movie scored more over negative points than positive ones & its seriously worst recent experience from most awaiting film of the year. Well let me tell you very honestly why I feel sad for this film-

# There is no essence in the script required in Bond films # It seems throughout the movie if you keep aside Bond that you are watching some B grade Revenge action drama # M looks helpless & totally out of power in almost every scenes # Movie missed the most expected one-liner- …name is BOND… # There's no spark in action sequences expected from Bond movies (Casino Royale has several …remember initial chase scene) # The film portrayed most unimpressive & ridiculous villain of Bond films & out of sync in his act as well as personality I know I hurt your expectations while writing this but Kya Karen yaar…Sachchai yahi hai… But above all these defects I will give full credits to to Daniel Craig because he is the only Hope & he saved the grace & maintained the dignity of Bond.

Just Average entertainer.

Ratings- 6/10
9/10
Bond as it should be - for grown-ups
paul-newman-710 November 2008
The James Bond series of films were getting very child-like in their production - hugely implausible set pieces and an almost A-Team way of dealing with violence. I've always been a fan of Bond but, to be honest, I really don't care if he introduces himself as Bond, James Bond or the down-the-barrel sequence is at the beginning or end (or at all). If that's what you're after, then no, you won't enjoy this film. But if you want an exciting film with a character that is probably closer to the books than any of the previous actors, with the exception of Sean Connery, then this is for you. As per some previous comments, I wouldn't sit too close to the screen and I wouldn't take a young child to see it.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as great as Royale...
Red_Identity18 May 2013
I certainly think this is a worthy and solid addition to the Bond franchise, but a huge disappointment after the fantastic Casino Royale. While there's a lot of action, the story seems rushed together, messy, and even the action sequences lack the tension and rush of the ones from Casino Royale. Saying that however, it's still a pretty fun film for what it's worth. Daniel Craig is better here than in Casino Royale and he's blended in to the role very nicely and has added more gravitas. I do think this one disappointed fans with good reason, and it's definitely just an action film and doesn't feel as mature as Royale, or as the new Skyfall.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
To be continued...
thewhitenite00713 November 2008
There was not a single point in the movie where my mind wondered off. The story kept you absorbed wondering what was next. Hopefully there will be a conclusion with Bond 23. I agree with most of what the person from the UK said prior to me. A very dark film The writers of Goldeneye are back with the addition of Paul Haggis again making the film go in the direction of smart wit, rather than corny Die Another Day humor. They do need to bring the gadgets back. Maybe if the stunt driver didn't drive the Aston Martin over the edge of a cliff back last winter we would have seen more of the car, which may only have been useful one other time.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond has Returned...
chikorita20210 November 2008
This review does not contain any spoilers.

First Impressions: After finding out that QoS was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, I was even more interested in seeing it. While many people said that it would not be a good movie if it was a direct sequel. Well...they were wrong. The movie starts with a fantastic car chase scene, which will leave a satisfying first impression in your mind.

Story: As it is a direct sequel, before seeing the movie itself you will know what the story is. After Vesper Lynd, the one Bond loved, died for him in Casino Royale, he goes to avenge her death and follows Dominic Green (as seen in Casnio Royale) everywhere he goes. This leads him to an organization called QUANTUM. And after that.....its better to see the movie first. This movie had a smaller plot compared to the deep plot in Casnio Royale.

Locations: To avenge Vesper's death, Bond goes everywhere to exotic locations like Panama, Mexico, Atacama Desert Chile, Tuscany, Italy, Austria and many more beautiful places.

Action Scenes: Like Casino Royale, after every 10-15 minutes, you will find an action scene. They are all intense and jaw-dropping. You will think Bond as killer machine at one point. Won't spoil anything, but there's an action scene where you will be reminded of an old bond movie. Well...there are many reference to other bond movies too.

Overall: This is a film which will not disappoint you, Or if you will this is not going to be good movie, then go to the movie feeling disappointed, and you will walk out of the theaters at the end of the movie, feeling that you were wrong.
8/10
viewing it a few times you see it is a good Bond film.
ib011f9545i7 September 2019
I am a fan of certain things,a soccer team,Bond,Star Trek,Dr Who. I don't understand people who say they like Dr Who but don't like a particular Dr or Bond but not Moore or whatever.

When I first saw Quantum I was disappointed there was a lot going on but I did not get it.

I have seen the film a few times and watched it shortly after Casino Royale. This was a good idea because it is a sequel to that film.

No plot spoilers but this film has some great action scenes and beautiful locations,so of course it is a Bond film.

I think Bond fans should give this one another shot. It's main weakness is the plot,which is undetailed but I think it is better than Spectre but not as good as Casino or Skyfall.

We should not have to watch a Bond film more than once to like it but this one repays repeated viewings
6/10
A little bit weak
jack_o_hasanov_imdb19 August 2021
Daniel Craig did a great job, but the movie was a little weak, but a Bond movie can always be watched without getting bored.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What happened?
AgedInWood16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am compelled to write this as a Bond fan but from a female perspective. My husband (Mr. Action) and I went Saturday night super excited to see this movie. We both loved Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. The five best things about that movie were Daniel Craig portraying a handsome, cold blooded, multi-layered Bond, a great plot taken from the book, gorgeous scenery, well written supporting characters and edge of your seat action.

So what happened? None of it happened --- that's what happened. Quantum of Solace missed on every count. Daniel Craig was given little to do but action scenes, the plot and the action didn't mix (like oil and water if you will), the scenery was awful, the characters poorly written and the editing was choppy and hard to watch.

I had hoped this latest franchise would continue with the development of Bond. In Casino Bond has his first kill and it eats at him. So what happens to a man when he kills repeatedly as he did in QOC? When you lose the love of your life and stop caring, is this why women become objects? You saw glimpses of this character development in QOC and why they didn't push it escapes me. And I'll be totally sexist here, as a woman I wanted to see hot Bond. Beyond a token bed scene, there was too little of Bond in a tux, towel or trunks let alone a romp with a woman.

As for the action, it made my head hurt. I felt like I was watching a Pierce Brosnan version all over again. If they intend to go back to action for action's sake, then they should bring back all of the Bond gadgets and Q. At least then, it's more fun.

They actually had a path they could have taken the plot and that is Mr.White's comment that members of his organization are everywhere. Now that would've given Bond something worthwhile to do – protect Queen and country, unearth and destroy the villains, solve the Vesper mystery and establish Bond as the go to guy who gets things done.

Alas, we were left with a mostly one dimensional, blow 'em up Bond. My popcorn was good though.
4/10
Worst Daniel Craig Bond movie so far
DeBBss25 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is a pre-production and post-production disaster. It has some of the worst editing I have ever seen in an action movie. It's so bad that I can barely tell what's going, and it absolutely ruins the action scenes. None of the action scenes were as good as Casino Royale's, so when you add the terrible editing, you get something that doesn't belong in a Bond movie. The screenplay is also pretty bad, but not as bad. I found the movie really hard to follow, and I was trying as hard as I can to follow along. And the actual plot was just lame. It's a direct sequel to Casino Royale, but it flops to the expectations we got from the ending of Casino Royale. The bad guy, Dominic Greene, is one of the most boring Bond villains. He looks lame, his name's lame, his schemes are lame, everything about this character is lame. The side characters are nothing special too. Strawberry Fields and Camille have no unique qualities, they're generally uninteresting. And the plot holes surrounding these characters are ridiculous. Why send a rookie like Fields on a dangerous mission, and then blame Bond when she dies, surely MI6 is better than that.

Quantum of Solace is the worst Daniel Craig Bond movie so far. Honestly, you don't even have to watch this movie if you want to know what happens after Casino Royale. It's so drastically different that it doesn't feel like a direct sequel. You could just read a detailed summary about this film and skip to Skyfall. It's a 4/10, on a good day, maybe a 5/10.
6/10
One of the most disappointing follow-up's I've ever seen, considering how phenomenally good Casino Royale was
callanvass18 September 2013
*Minor Spoiler*

Quantum of Solace is actually an above average Bond film. It's certainly slick and fairly entertaining, but after how blown away I was by Casino Royale? It's also heavily disappointing. There is no awe or wonder like Casino Royale had. It's nowhere near as daring or emotional. I usually have difficulties with movies that are two hours or longer, but this movie was way too short. I could have easily handled another half hour or so, it definitely needed it. It just felt rushed and passive at times. There is plenty of action to make this a breezy time, I'll say that. I also liked how cold blooded Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond was. He is still heartbroken from the loss of Eva Green in Casino Royale. He was the main reason I was invested in this movie. Olga Kurylenko is rather bland for a Bond girl. She's rather average looking, and she didn't do much for me to be honest with you. Mathieu Amalric is also bland as the villain. I got nothing much from him at all, either, nor was he that menacing. Judi Dench plays off Craig extremely well, and I adored the gal.

Final Thoughts: I would not make the same mistake I did by watching this a day after you've seen Casino Royale. As a standalone action film, it's not bad and fairly entertaining. But it's not the follow-up Casino Royale deserved. Skyfall would amend this situation

6.2/10
4/10
One of the biggest disappointments in cinematic history (Biggest Bond Fan Ever)!!!
o_christian15 November 2008
This represents nothing of what Bond is about! When watching the movie you are so lost in the action; the plot (which is so thin) gets completely side-tracked. The opening shows yet another building site action sequence (aka Casino Royale). James Bond's Austin Martin gets damaged beyond repair (where are the gadgets and where is Q)?? Where is the humour (no witty quips?) No Vodka Martini (Shaken not Stirred). Why is the movie filmed in so many different locations (Bond re-visit's Italy, surely not just to pick up Mathis, as if he forgot him?) No passion or seduction? Why was the Goldfinger scene imitated (bond girl soaked in oil, surely this should be gold paint?) How does Bond survive after falling out of a plane when his parachute has only been open a matter of seconds (almost the worst stunt, second to Brosnan' surfing fiasco in Die Another Day).

Overall, for a huge Bond fan this is sheer pain to watch! Saving grace? Olga Kurylenko was hott!
7/10
Bruising But Lacks Slickness
damianphelps28 March 2021
Not as good as Casino Royale but still a great addition to the Bond series.

The plus, it keeps the tough uncompromising badass Bond, the girls and the action.

The minus, lack of those supervillain elements and gadgetry than make Bond unique to other action/spy films.

Enjoyable but not classic :)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Action scenes are too fast paced and the editing is off. The flow of this story just doesnt gel. Still enjoyable enough, but there are better Bond editions out there...
imseeg20 May 2019
The bad: this movie was made during a writers strike in Hollywood. Director and actors had to sometimes change the story themselves while they were shooting the film. Daniel Craig was really unnerved by this tiring experience.

Furthermore there was a lack of time to edit this movie properly. Action scenes are edited so fastpaced that I often couldnt even see what was happening anymore. All the big action scenes are pumped into the first half hour and afterwards little impressive action is to be seen. Why?

The acting is ok ish, BUT the bad guy is not at all tough looking, but rather weird and miserable looking. This was a conscious decision by the director, but every Bond movie needs a really mean villain and this one hasnt got one. Bummer.

Any good? Well, this edition has got a rough edge to it, with tough action and tough poses by Daniel Craig. I liked that. But there is also a flipside to all that toughness. Because of the contstant toughness there is no room for jokes. With the seriousness and toughness of Daniel Craig the jokes have unfortunately vanished from the Bond franchise.

There is one thing quite good about this movie though. The story, however incohesive it is told, has got a credible plot, but who is interested in that?
3/10
Bond... James, Bond... not.
Jose Guilherme12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Is the action good like Rambo ? No.

Is this Bond sophisticated and smart ? No.

Is the story coherent ? No.

Is the direction good ? No.

Are their any spy gadgets ? No.

Does Bond have sex with 2 or more women ? No.

Is this a James Bond movie after so many "No's" ? NO ! To make it worst... its not like the other Bond movies were great script and direction pieces. Still somehow they managed to flunk this movie. The Bond brand is SO EASY to follow. They only got the exotic chase sequences in right.... and even then its somehow not exciting.

The movie loses so much time whining about Vesper from the last movie in the end you become fed up.

Sadly this seems to be the worst Bond...
8/10
8 - Great
cartesianthought22 December 2015
Underrated under the towering shadow of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace picks up just minutes later with a lightning fast, thrilling uniquely edited car chase. While the writer's strike prevented a full-fledged story from being written, the minimalism, akin to that of some of the older films, is a strength in its favor. Confronting the death of his lover internally and stopping a corrupt corporate monopoly plot abroad, Bond is well occupied and his character is tested.

There's a lot of beautiful shots here, especially with a frantic opera scene. The scenes of Mathis are particularly powerful. Director Marc Forster puts in a lot of little unique touches, and with each scene flowing to the next, the pace is on point. It's sometimes confusing as to what's going on, but I'd easily take that over being spoonfed.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good, but it could be much better.
filipemanuelneto5 April 2016
Directed by Marc Forster and produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, it has script by Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and Paul Haggis. This is the twenty-second movie of the franchise and is the second film in the new era of James Bond, embodied by the participation of Daniel Craig as 007. It inherits the central cast from the previous film, to which joins Olga Kurylenko, in the role of bond-girl Camille, Gemma Arterton, in the role of Strawberry Fields, Mathieu Amalric in the role of villain, Dominic Greene, and Joaquín Cosio in the role of General Medrano.

In this film, James Bond seeks revenge for the death of Vesper, killed by Quantum, a mysterious criminal organization that seeks to manipulate governments and control natural resources. In the process, however, he will have to act on his own, even going against MI6's orders to destroy this criminal syndicate.

This is one of the Bond movies I understand worse due to its complexity. It's so complicated and intricate that it becomes incomprehensible. But it's also true that, after the success of "Casino Royale" (which this film follows up), it would be difficult to obtain similar results. Despite the incomprehensibility, i enjoy the way that it approaches the value of water and ecological issues and concerns. Daniel Craig continues to play his role brilliantly, giving realism and credibility to the British agent. The interpretations of Mathieu Amalric and Joaquín Cosio also deserve congratulations, especially the latter one, which could become truly repellent with his sexist behavior and total disregard for women. However, Olga Kurylenko didn't satisfy me: her interpretation is very positive but her character is too ambiguous: she was a great help to Bond, she touched the audience with her story, but she isn't attractive enough to be a bond-girl. The opening sequence didn't surprised, despite Alicia Keys collaboration on the song "Another Way to Die"
7/10
Consolation prize.
southdavid11 September 2021
Preparation for "No Time to Die" continues with us rewatching "Quantum of Solace". I have to admit, I was bracing myself a bit for this one, given its critical consensus but actually, and perhaps especially watched so quickly after "Casino Royale", I rather enjoyed it.

Bond (Daniel Craig) delivers Mr White (Jesper Christensen) to M (Judi Dench) for questioning, regarding the criminal organisation Quantum, only for a turncoat agent to release him. Tracking the agent's contacts, leads Bond to entrepreneur Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who is organising a coup of the Bolivian Government to install the exiled General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), in return for a parcel of land in the country. Alongside Camile (Oleg Kurylenko ) a former associate of Greene who was using him for personal revenge against the General, Bond investigates the land and discovers the heart of Quantum's diabolical scheme.

Whether it was because of the writer's strike or not, I've never really appreciated until this viewing how much of a direct sequel to "Casino Royale" "Quantum of Solace" is. It literally starts almost immediately after the last scene of that film and deals emotionally with Bond's "Inconsolable Rage" over the betrayal by and death of Vesper Lynd. It's a much better story when you tie the two films directly together.

The action scenes are again really good. With Bond being much more violent than last time, smashing his assailants through doors and windows and it's actually a plot point about how much of a loose cannon he is, killing people that MI6 would like to question. I don't like the kinetic editing that Marc Forster decided on though, I'd have preferred to stay with the shots a little longer, especially given how much stunt work Daniel Craig was doing.

Much more than any other Bond film, there are many notable actors in small roles, particularly to a British audience. Aside from David Harbour, sporting the shadiest moustache in the world. The late great Paul Ritter plays a member of Quantum. Stana Katic plays a Canadian intelligence agent in a small scene, Sarah Hadland plays the airline receptionist and Oona Chaplin plays the hotel waitress in a scene that, frankly, I thought went a bit further than it really needed to.

So, I was bracing myself for this, but found a surprisingly enjoyable time. Not perfect, not even as good as "Casino Royale" but nowhere near the car crash I was anticipating.
2/10
Quantum Disappointment
holybagpipes14 November 2008
What was the $200 Million spent on? A polar opposite to Casino Royale. The movie was one constant chase scene with shaky/chaotic videography similar to the Blair Witch Project. It was nauseating to the eyes and distracted me and my family from the poor character development. Characters enter and leave the movie far too quickly without a build up in relationship or understanding of their role leaving large gaps in the movie. Connections are made between scenes that end in vain.

There was too much gratuitous and poorly motivated violence and not enough covert "spy" dialogue between characters. There was no build up to the sex-implied scene either. Like many of the killings, it just happens without provocation.

When the diabolical plan is revealed, it makes me yawn and say "you gotta be kidding me that organizations are covertly plotting for that..." It was too far fetched.

At least two of the main characters are shot in the beginning of the movie and just appear later without any reference to their injury.

It is amazing that female characters are able to keep their nails perfectly painted and trim after going through hell. It's also way too far fetched for one of the female characters to battle another character superior in career experience and size. Not to mention, James Bond has great make-up showing a progression of facial scars throughout the movie. However, I would suspect he would "stand out in a crowd" with so many scars and lose his ability to be discreet for future operations.

The timing of the humor scenes is poor also. You don't even get a good laugh.

You never really know what is going on due to the style of videography, poor plot, fantastic jumps in development, poor character development, and too many interjections of secondary characters.

The retro 60's/70's beginning ought be tossed aside. It was great during the cold war and Austin Powers. Some will disagree - this is a tradition in Bond films. But that was in the day when you didn't have full rear nudity on cable TV and Youtube. It doesn't fit with the plot or scenerio.

Overall, I need to wash my brain by watching Casino Royale again and hope a different director is employed for the next film.

I gave it a 2/10 because the actor playing James Bond does a great job being authentic to the character and I enjoyed my popcorn.
2/10
This is the worst "Bond film" from the worst Bond actor.
TheHonestCritic25 February 2019
"Quantum of Solace" (2008), a.k.a. the worst Bond movie (SO FAR). I hate to even call it a Bond movie because of one thing, Daniel Craig. I don't know what everyone was drinking when they said that they enjoy Daniel Craig as Bond, but they better stop for the sake of their health, and they should probably get a CAT scan! Any way, back to this "movie". This "movie", just like the other Daniel Craig Bond movies, is complete and utter garbage. But, this one takes the cake! The editing is a joke, most of the acting is a joke, and the soundtrack is average. However, the only good elements are the opening car chase, the special effects, and that's it. Unfortunately, those aspects can't save this abomination of a "movie". This should've been a wake-up call to the producers to fire Daniel Craig and replace him with a proper actor to play James Bond. But, as I've said before: I don't hate Daniel Craig as an actor overall. He has acted well in other movies, but the role of Bond is about the worst fit you can get for him. Daniel Craig has great potential as an action movie star with his own franchise. I actually wouldn't mind seeing him in "The Expendables 4"! But, what can you do? Maybe someday the studio will wise up, and finally replace Daniel Craig with a proper actor for Bond. I rate this "film" 1 out of 5 stars on my scale, which equates to 2 out of 10 IMDB stars. Just stick with any other Bond movie besides the Daniel Craig films, you'll be much better off watching the real Bond movies instead.
Worthless film
leighstitcher22 December 2008
This is by far the most worthless Bond film. First, Daniel Craig is totally unbelievable as Bond - with his pursey mouth and beady eyes. Plus, he appears far too old and fragile to portray an active Bond. He is not suave - frankly he doesn't have the class of a Sean Connery or a Roger Moore or a Pierce Brosnan. He appears far too working class to be believed!

Second, the script was very poorly done - nothing more than a series of 60 second sound bites - no continuity, no meat. It's as if the writers targeted an idiot level for viewers. The discerning viewer today wants to see more than car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex!

This film has no legs!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Royale but still brutally Bond
chasabi3 November 2008
Just got back from the cinema and came out glad I got my monies worth! A lot of people have been saying this isn't as good as Casino Royale.... which it isn't but take away the high expectations because of the excellence of Royale and this is still a great film and thoroughly enjoyable.

In my opinion Daniel Craig is a brilliant Bond, I love the no pain approach, totally brutal and very believable plus he is COOL! All the acting was good, the story was slightly cliché but still interesting and as ever the action was awesome and fast paced. Bond fans like me will love this, action fans will love this, anyone looking for a good film will love it, you can't go wrong with Bond!

I give Quantum of Solace an 8/10 because it doesn't meet the high expectations of Casino royal but it comes close, go see it!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
QOS: sophomore slump?
InzyWimzy16 August 2011
Ah, Quantum of Solace. After Casino Royale, expectations were understandably high for Daniel Craig's second outing as 007. However, the movie as a whole is average at best. After having seen QOS a few times, I do feel that the high points in the film far outweigh the lows overall.

Give credit to Daniel Craig for his portrayal of the no nonsense, stone cold secret agent. I did feel one minor flaw how Bond is shown as a super agile, acrobatic agent able to jump, flip, and somersault his way out of any dangerous situation. James Bond has always be known for using his wits and instincts to survive rather than just brawn alone. However, this is minor and it does provide for entertaining action. I do like how QOS starts off right where Casino Royale ended. The enigmatic Mr. White and his mysterious organization has M & co. at their wits end trying to figure out what he's up to.

The relationships between the characters are great here especially between Bond and M. You sense they are both on shaky ground since M is not sure whether or not she can fully trust him to act objectively (especially after the events in Casino Royale). Bond's stubborn and headstrong ways push the envelope to the edge, but he still manages to prove to M that he is reliable. From the earlier films of Connery, Moore (and so on), M & 007's relationship is already well established. I thought it was interesting to show the early side of it here. Also, Felix Leiter (played well by Jeffrey Wright) and Bond bump into each other again. Even though they've only met once, you can sense the trust between the two. This relationship is a major theme between 007 and Felix in most of the Bond films.

On the downside, QOS suffers from a weak story. The story of Mr. White, Bond's quest for revenge and finding the truth is great, but after the first third of the movie, it tends to drift away from that. The plan of Dominic Greene and Quantum was just not as interesting. The action scenes (car chase, interrogation, hotel battle) are fun, but the times in between seem to hurt the pacing of the film. Dominic Greene was a subpar villain who's best weapon was making threats. Also, Camille came off kind of bland as just seemed to 'be there'. I felt that Fields (Gemma Arterton) played a much more memorable role. In fact, her one scene was strangely reminiscent of Goldfinger.

Overall, QOS is not a bad Bond film. I must admit that I am curious to see how Bond 23 will be, but I must be patient and await MI6's debriefing for that future mission.
10/10
The first Bond "sequel"
Med-Jasta11 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like everyone else I was surprised by the Casino Royal reboot. I was also surprised by the sequel. Picking up directly after Casino Royal was almost as mind-blowing. And definitely less confusing, haha. It was nice to see Bond continue a story. Of course the Spectre storyline drives the Connery movies but in this Bond continues his emotional journey, which is something we never really got before. I guess he's out for revenge in the very beginning of Diamonds are Forever, but this is different.

This movie feels incredibly Bond while also feeling like a new movie. After so many it's very important to keep opening up what's possible for Bond and to focus on what Bond can be as apposed to what Bond was. This movie delivers. It was nice to see a Bond movie that was under two hours. Because they're long and feel long. But this was all of the bang but shorter. Probably the reason is that this movie is fast! It flies! The action stops only briefly. And I like that most of the action is small. There's just a few big sequences, but most are small. And it continues the Bond tradition of showing you things you'd never seen before.

Bond's quest for revenge is cool. Because Vesper wasn't the love of his life for that movie. She was in his life and he's not going to forget it. I like that Quantum is a group that MI6 doesn't even know about. It makes it kinda creepy. The opera scene is so cool. Not only the opera but that they meet in a crowded place to talk by ear piece was cool.

The bad guy was cool because he's very realistic. A bad guy that appears to be doing something good but he uses it as a cover for his own selfish profits. There's always someone to take advantage of any good cause.

The scaffolding fight was really cool. So was the hotel fight at the end with the explosions. You could feel the impact of the explosion. The car chase at the start was great. His door getting ripped off was awesome. The editing is very fast but you can tell (barely) what's happening. Also when Mathis dies was a nice tender moment. He wants Bond to stay and Bond holds him. Not very "manly" but very realistic and not something you generally get from action movies. But Bond has never been just action movies have they? They're Bond movies and this is a great addition. Keep them coming.
6/10
Quantum of Solace- where is the Spy who we loved?
kabirp-110 November 2008
I consider myself the biggest bond fan at least in South Asia. Having closely followed anything to do with Bond for over 20 years, I walked out of the theater with a broken heart. My excitement at watching my hero 'come back' in a sequel to Casino Royale lay shattered to pieces.

There are somethings in life(and movies) which are sacrosanct like the opening gun barrel sequence in a Bond movie. I respect the need for change and evolution etc, but not featuring the opening gun barrel shot at the beginning is a blasphemy. The director Marc Foster is known for making fine 'arty' movies, but a Bond film is a Bond film.. the formula has been successful for over 40 years, why change it now?? and at what cost? - I (and I am sure at least half the world) have been emotionally scarred.

The film is peppered with a fast pace car chase, a mid air dogfight and fight sequences, in my opinion it was too fast paced, I don't think audience had time to understand the context of each scene. Peter Hunt also tried fast pace editing which worked well in the early bonds, but here it just made the format complicated and confusing. I was unable to admire the sets because of this fast edit, slash and burn concept.

Judi Dench has more scenes than any other Bond leading lady in the past, to me it meant loosing M's mysteriousness, in other words M's has been overexposed, having said this, Judi Dench's portrayal of M is flawless. Daniel Craig's hard work comes across in his depiction of Bond, Mathieu Amalric as the villain has done justice to his character. Others include Olga Kurylenko as the revenge seeking tough leading lady, no matter how hard they try not be like the previous Bond girls, they end up becoming one.

I do hope the producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli (both of whom I admire immensely) take note and reverse the new order in the next Bond film.
10/10
Bond in Solace
buzznzipp199521 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's lithium -like on screen appearance, I was caught up and deeply involved, there was a sort of flashing, that catches your senses, James profile and you are trying to make it all out as fast as it is happening! This almost leaving you behind in the first moments.

A nameless, unknown and very important man in an interrogatory situation who exclaims in an eerie undertone "We've got people everywhere.." And just then, one of the new world order members, the man's allie, pulls his pistol rapid fires it and kills one of MI-6.

A flurry of action explodes as the criminal elements tail James sweeping through the road in and out of traffic and ultimately ripping the door off Bond's beautiful Astin-lovely-Martin! So sad I almost cried! That's no way to treat a car of that stature. Then pulling onto a rock filled side road connecting them to a Corry, James getting hammered by gunfire, finally (driving solo) takes hold of his weapon and fires back!!! Then onto two big doors opening he is able to head down that little pathway to a spot and parks. I won't tell you what happens next, I want you to be able to watch this and enjoy it. Not everyone will, but there is enough 'shock-value' for the want-on oo7 fan. James Bond no more. What you're seeing when you watch this is a splendid and necessary departure, from the predecessors of the past. Withstanding, only recently Casino Royale (2006). A box office blast, that started a new and more grown up Bond. Scaithing and gritty. A harder hitting and more real effecting Bond than has been previously seen.

Brosnan, whom I have loved from the on-set has been more 'hit and miss' for me. Goldeneye (1995) was with mass appeal for me and millions of 'Bondies', made me glad Bond was back. By the end however, with 2002's Die Another Day, that episode of Bond was less then stellar in performance and by all standards I hate to admit, I was both sorry that Brosnan had left and happy that a significant change could take course...bring the New era of James Bond.

I enjoyed his Frenchman buddy that always acts with his very own flavor and seasoned style. I was not happy for the last situation he ended up with.

Quantum is 'manic' speed in part and massive in style and beauty of surrounding scenery. It's powerful with shock...no slick one- liners. Instead just iron gripping strength brought out by Daniel Craig's Spy hero-007. The out dated double o, as an irratant to Judy Dench's M. But Cromagnun has never been soo good, aye Miss Judi? After breaking a killer, almost in half in Haiti's Port A Prince, I was stunned , amazed at how real it felt. Simple and yet brilliant directing for me. Honest and definitely hard (smash-cut) calculated blows, I could feel the pain of every 'hit'.

Even with the locking the dead bad guy in the bathroom at the party, Bond takes the handle (snaps it) off of the door and does with such calculated brute force, that it just makes you laugh because of his control. The end sequence is very serene and for me satisfied, the story ending, bringing it all - in-all. It was like a snowy cold Christmas send off without the fan-fare, just muffled and quiet, bringing it to the end. Whew! All that, and I am hungry for more, yet satisfied in the mean time. Wondering, will Craig be back or...who would be next???

I was thoroughly impressed with 'Quantum' and even though not all will, I say, Recommended Highly for the Bond fanatic. (*****)
6/10
"Quantum of Solace" suffers despite Daniel Craig's continued excellence
MasterDebator525 November 2008
Quantum of Solace

Directed by Marc Forster. Starring Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko and Judi Dench.

Despite having possibly the worst title of any 007 feature, I was very excited to see the follow-up to 2006's fantastic "Casino Royale." Bond's character was reborn in "Royale," the best installment since 1995's "GoldenEye." Most fans were hoping for "Quantum of Solace" to continue the trend. Unfortunately, the new film backtracks and completely fails to meet expectations.

Daniel Craig returns as the charming English spy and is just as good as before, albeit with much less to do. This time he's looking to avenge the death of Vesper Lynd, the woman who betrayed his love. Going on the little information received from the sinister Mr. White, Bond seeks out members of Quantum, an ominous organization with unknown motives. Even though 007 deals with many of its henchmen, not much information is given about the SPECTRE-like group. This is most likely to set up for the next film and stir up excitement among audiences.

After hopping through more exotic locations than you can shake a martini at, Bond tracks down Dominic Greene -- one of Quantum's top operatives -- and uncovers his plot to control Bolivia's water supply. Though the movie notes that water is the world's most valuable resource, the scheme just isn't interesting or villainous enough. For that matter, neither is Greene (Mathieu Amalric, who works well with what he's given). Bland as he may be, Greene isn't short of any enemies. While scoping out the villain, Bond encounters the beautiful Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Like Bond, she also has revenge on her mind, and is using Greene to settle a score. The character has potential to be deep and interesting, but Kurylenko is ultimately unable to commit.

Throughout the mission, Bond has to deal with an increasingly irritated -- and irritating -- M (Dame Judi Dench), who is given far too big a role. "Quantum" has other things that it should be focusing on, and would have been better suited keeping 007's boss behind her desk.

Forster's direction is unsatisfying, and his final product suffers from two major aspects of film-making: pacing and editing. It starts up with a visually distracting car chase, filmed primarily with shaky hand-held cameras, that leaves the audience playing catch-up as to what took place on-screen. The scenes are reminiscent of the "Bourne" films, and for good reason. The producers hired the crew from 2007's "The Bourne Ultimatum" to film the action pieces. Bond was once reborn, but now he's 're-Bourne.' The transition is a failure, and will hopefully be ditched for future Bond movies.

"Quantum's" unrelenting pace doesn't let up as the movie progresses, and neither do the unstable cameras and quick-cut edits. The movie is bereft of almost any breathing room, leaving the James Bond character little time to develop. Normally, griping about character development in a Bond film would be futile. After twenty-two films spanning over forty years, one would think that there's little left of 007 to explore. And yet with "Casino Royale", the series brought a much needed shot of humanity to the world's most famous secret agent. It's a big disappointment to see that compassion ignored this time around.

"Quantum" is not overtly bad as much as it just isn't very good. Hopefully this is just a misstep, and the next Bond film will be a worthy addition to the series. Craig deserves another fantastic outing to truly solidify his depiction of James Bond. Unfortunately, after "Quantum of Solace", he's still waiting for one.

Final Grade: C
6/10
Not to good of a movie for Bond
geochub24 November 2008
After watching this movie I was very disappointed. The opening action scene wasn't as powerful as a Bond fan expects. This movie seemed very choppy. The Quantum of Soloce story written by Ian Fleming was a short story and it seemed as if the filmmakers stretched events out to thin and then added action scenes in between them to make a 2 hour movie. Also, I thought the whole "Trust you when I know you are you" from "M" was established in Casino Royale, it continues in this movie. It seems as if the filmmakers sucked that idea dry to build some sort of underlining drama that was like beating a dead horse in this movie. I am a deep hearted Bond fan and will never give up my devotion to it, even when a movie is not that great. Advice: Wait until this one comes on DVD to see.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I definitely expected more
r96sk27 March 2020
Not entirely sure how I feel about this one.

The cast involved are decent, the plot is fairly intriguing, the locations are tremendous and the music is satisfying. However, I don't feel anything towards the characters involved. I should care more for Bond, for Camille, for Fields but I simply don't.

I definitely expected more, given how 'Casino Royale' concluded in a way that was clear it had 'Quantum of Solace' in mind. It still makes the top eight in terms of my James Bond ranking at this point, but I thought it would be a film that would place higher up.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Way better Bond
tastyhotdogs13 December 2008
Sat night Dean and I headed to Forest Hill to go see the latest Bond flick- "Quantum of Solace". It would be the first Bond flick I'd seen since "The World Is Not Enough" , the one with Denise Richards as Christmas the nuclear scientist, which should tell you how credible that was. That put me off seeing Bond flicks for a while, but seeing as i'd been invited plus we now had D Craig as the the main man, I thought I had nothing to lose.

"Quantum of Solace" is about Bond being on a mission to hunt down a guy who killed a good friend of his (I think). In the middle of that he gets caught up in a plot to overthrow the Bolivian government (man they must have used up a lot of countries) and a rort revolving around natural resources. Luckily most of the film though focuses on vehicle chases and explosions. Some of it pretty jerky, making it hard to properly follow and also allowing them to get away with some of the most ridiculous stunts ever. The film climaxes with Bond and his ally Camille both given the chance to exact revenge.

Good action stunts, and I much prefer this moody, troubled Bond than the suave one. Add the great locations and you have an enjoyable movie. Worth seeing.
1/10
Weakest of Bond movies that I can remember
tom111116 November 2008
Not satisfied at all with this movie. I was expecting something gritty and compelling and just got the opposite. The biggest problem was the story. I didn't get the story and some of the scenes and logic of the movie didn't flow. It was not real world. It basically had not story. It didn't have any gritty performance or scene that I was expecting from bond movies when Pierce Brosnan was around. There just was not story. It was comedic, some of the stuff that they main characters were doing. You suddenly show up in some weird far away place and in the next scene you are in some kind of city. People won't just buy that. I would say it is opposite of Batman Begins kind of gritty and real/convincing movie into a childish suit and tie wearing guy just running around just for the sake of it. It is just sad. I hope Marc Foster the director doesn't direct any action movie from now on. What were they thinking? It is not worth $10 dollars. You might as well just rip it and throw it away and watch Batman Begins or The Dark Knight and appreciate how well a movie should be made compared to this. Not all big budgets automatically produce a well movie.
6/10
just doesn't make it
lexus325-214 November 2008
I put this Bond movie with the Roger Moore group and that is not because of Daniel Craig. The script was unfocused and jumped around all over the place, but it was a classic compared to the direction and editing. I feel sure that something exciting was taking place on the screen, but all the quick cuts undermined everything. I have always thought that the later Bonds went on too long, but this is the other extreme.

The subplot with Giancarlo Giannini was half baked and unnecessary. Jeffrey Wright was also wasted. The Dominic Greene villain will easily rank as the worst in the total series.

With what is shown on screen, it is unbelievable that the budget was $225,000,000!!! Hopefully, the next Bond will not be a continuation of Casino Royale (which was one of the best!)It is a shame to waste all the interest generated by that movie, with this follow up.

I rate it a 6 for the acting and locations.
4/10
questions
arnewolff2 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After I have seen the movie, I was left with a lot of questions.

First, I don't get why they named the movie Quantum of Solace? I didn't see any reference in the film.

Why is Felix Leiter suddenly an afro-American man instead of a Caucasian man like in the rest of the movies? I refer to the wedding in "license to kill".

The whole movie is about revenge for the "murder" of his girlfriend in "Casino Royal", but nowhere in the movie is the question answered who killed her. Everyone assumes it was Mr. White, but there is absolutely no proof he did it.

Why in heavens name did the whole complex burn down with a lot of explosions? Why is the James Bond tune at the end of the movie instead of the beginning? In the middle of the movie JB chased Mr. White. Mr. White stepped into a plane and flew away. JB telephones with M. who orders a seat on a plane to the same location Mr. White is going. The next scene you see JB and Mr. White in a concert-building... How did they get there??? Last scene... Mr. White was found dead in the desert with his stomach full of oil and 2 bullets in his head. Who shot him? Double death? Why is the ambassador's girl murdered and covered in oil, while the secret of the desert was not finding oil, but stealing water? I mean the purpose of the kill was to make a statement, why do it with oil? It doesn't make sense...

In one of the last scenes Camille shot down the tyrant with her last bullet (so it says in the film), but 5 minutes later JB rescues her by shooting again with her gun into a gas-bottle which explodes forcing an exit for them both.

I know, I know, I know, you have to take JB-movies not serious, but I 've been a fan of JB since ever, but this movie doesn't answer any questions but it raises a lot more. And usually I never see mistakes in films, but these are so obvious even I have seen them.

A disappointed fan.
6/10
"There is something horribly efficient about you"
ackstasis21 November 2008
Arghh, I've got a splitting headache! The human brain only process a certain number of images every second, and when a film has an average shot length of about 0.4 seconds, it really clouds one's perception. It's not that 'Quantum of Solace (2008)' isn't a classy film; it's classy in the great Bond tradition, blending cheap thrills with sophisticated banter, nefarious villains and gorgeous women. But when, as an enthusiastic cinema-goer, I dread the arrival of the next action sequence, something has gone seriously wrong. Marc Forster is a talented director, as evidenced by 'Stranger than Fiction (2006),' and he has a good visual flair, handling Bond's quieter moments with a steady and sophisticated hand. However, if his idea of an action scene is to cut frenetically to a different angle three times a second, with a shaky camera that suggests you're driving alongside 007 on a malfunctioning washing-machine, then he really needs to stick to quiet, contemplative dramas and light comedies. When all is said and done, I can't appreciate the artistry of a sequence if I can't decipher what is going on.

I don't want to dwell on the negatives, though. 'Quantum of Solace' improves considerably in its second half, surrendering an overload of adrenalin-charge action set-pieces for a more understated, brooding tale of loss, regret and retribution. The film is a follow-on from Martin Campbell's 'Casino Royale (2006),' though it remains independent enough to succeed as a standalone film, such that even new arrivals to the franchise (assuming they exist) can still follow the story reasonably well. Daniel Craig, in his second turn as Ian Fleming's famous MI6 agent, has not lost any of his potency, managing somehow to come across as both brutal and tender at the same time. Judi Dench, as M, continues to prove that even an old woman can be commanding enough to boss around Britain's toughest spy, a triumph of casting if you ask me. Olga Kurylenko does well as Bond's strong-willed female sidekick, though she's not quite strong enough to get along without the guiding masculine hand of 007; it wouldn't be a Bond film if the girls could take care of themselves, would it?

Craig's portrayal of Bond is that of a tortured human being; a rather exceptional one, of course, but a human nonetheless. This effectively harks back to Sean Connery's earliest portrayals – in 'Dr. No (1962)' and 'From Russia With Love (1963)' – in which Bond wasn't an agile, unassailable superhuman, but a suave government agent with a frightening mean streak. Craig certainly brings more humility to the role, but his inherent personal vulnerability is a facet of his character that I'm glad is being explored. The primary villain of 'Quantum of Solace' is a greasy-haired Frenchman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), whose sinister plan involves cornering the water supply of Bolivia. It doesn't sound very diabolic when you say it like that, but look deeper and there's something more ominous afoot. Greene belongs to a shady organisation named Quantum, of which even MI6 knows practically nothing, and whose members will certainly play a larger role in the inevitable Bond 23. As long as the next appointed director exerts more effort in keeping the action sequences discernible, then I'm looking forward to whatever comes next.
6/10
How to fix James Bond for the next entry.......
gevalero14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is one of those movies you're not sure what to think of until some time passes from your first viewing. I believe the main reason that this series has been going for so long is that, when the producers have made a mistake on one of their films, they will show an open mind, come back the next time around and fix it. EX.: the sillier space sagas YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and MOONRAKER were followed respectively by ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, films in which Bond was brought back to earth; the outlandish DIE ANOTHER DIE was followed by the solid CASINO ROYALE and so forth. With this in mind, my suggestions for fixing the goofs on QUANTUM OF SOLACE are as follows: 1) Hire a real, renowned great singer, not one teens will dig (as far as I know, Shirley Bassey is still alive and these kids can't hold a candle to her). 2) Never again use the Bourne editing process, nobody likes it, period. You can't appreciate a great stunt when it cuts too fast to a next one which you don't end up appreciating either. QOS' editing all but itself sank it. 3) The gun barrel scene goes at the beginning, never again at the end. What the heck was the point in doing so ? 4) Go to any exotic countries you may like but use their most beautiful locales, not their ugliest. It's nice to find locations with "flavor", not so good when they don't "taste" so good. 5) If you want the audience to hate the villain, don't just imply he killed a beloved characters as in the case of Mathis and Agent Fields. Show it on screen so we can detest him properly and thus enjoy his doom. 6) When Bond kills the main villain show it. Don't just have him discuss it with his boss. 7) As bad as things might be for Bond on the movie. Give him a few scenes in which he might actually be happy. One of his main characteristics is his enjoyment of the good things in life (drink, food, girls and so on). 8) A follow up to 7: Bond must never say goodbye to the movie's main woman character in a car, in the dessert shaking hands or whatever. A body of water and heavy kissing have always been the norm (and worked out great as far as I can remember). 9) Take under consideration: hotels in the dessert are not flammable per se. 10) Bring back Moneypenny and Q. Their scenes always brought a smile to my face. Samantha Bond is more than adequate as the first but good luck finding someone to replace the beloved Desmond Llewlyn (but you have to do it anyway !). 11) Make sure the villain's evil plot is more evil and dangerous to world peace than simply leaving about a dozen people with funny looking hats, waterless, 12) Also remember, there are great film-makers, auteurs and directors who know how to make great Bond movies. Which have been the best of the recent ones ? : GOLDENYE and CASINO ROYALE. What do both of them have in common ?. Need I go on ? I'm sure you can afford the guy. By the way, QOS is OK. Had a sane editor cut it it would be above average for Bond, as it was it turned out below the median line. I guess you can say it is not as good as the sum of its parts and as such a wasted opportunity.
9/10
Bond is Back!
jts040519 November 2008
I really enjoyed Casino Royale because Daniel Craig has done such a phenomenal job with the James Bond character. He has really captured the character well in his own unique way. This movie really had some high expectations for me because Casino Royale was really well done. I immediately felt obligated to buy a ticket to Quantom of Solace just to see what it was like. This movie was really good, it was on the same level as Casino Royale in all aspects. I was satisfied with this movie because it lived up to my expectations. Daniel Craig continued his fantastic run as Bond in this movie and I hope they keep him around doing Bond movies for a very long time. A must see for fans of the Bond movies.

9/10
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond Never Left...
richard-hodges27 November 2008
The James Bond franchise, like the man himself, is a curious animal. The decision to reinvent or redefine (or even perhaps define him as his creator originally intended) has divided fans but will no doubt contribute to the franchise's longevity. The success of 2006's Casino Royale has seen the filmmakers take brave but tentative steps forward, perhaps to see how much the public is really interested in the "real" Bond. Time will tell, but for now, what of Quantum of Solace?

It has everything money can buy, Fist-fights and gunfights, car chases and boat chases, and explosions big and small. The filmmakers have included several high-voltage action set-pieces, probably out of obligation to the old and new Bond viewing public. Gotta have 'em. There are expectations to be met, and Sony probably didn't invest $200m without certain promises being fulfilled.

Quantum of Solace isn't really about action though. It isn't about Quantum organisation either. It isn't about Dominic Greene. Nor is it about oil or water, Bolivia or Britain. The plot, whatever it is, is irrelevant really. It's about Bond, the man, the conundrum, unquestionably the greatest and richest source of "story" in the well.

It's about Bond and his relationships. To varying degrees, those with Camille, Agent Fields, Felix Leiter, Vesper, Mathis and especially M. As Bernard Lee's M used to be Bond's disapproving Father figure, so Dench's portrayal is that of a fearful mother, who doesn't condone her child's actions or methods, but loves him all the same despite the worry and despair he often causes. Her M is played with real feeling. She says she needs Bond, and my word she means it. Bond doesn't return the compliment, but he should because while M would manage without Bond, he most certainly would not without her.

And the brief scene with Bond and Leiter is a subtle gem.

And what of comparisons to Casino Royale? This is as redundant and comparing Dr No with Moonraker, but what the hell. QOS' predecessor is now regarded with an almost peculiar reverence. Could it be that we were all so greatly relieved that it wasn't the turkey that many predicted, that we've all awarded it an additional star or two out of gratitude? Whatever, Casino Royale was a fine film and a huge success. Rewatching it now though, it sits alongside Quantum rather awkwardly (or vice-versa). Craig is far more comfortable now as Bond and the filmmakers have taken the definitive step in their new direction which is clear rather than the old-Bond-new-Bond hybrid that was Casino Royale.

And Marc Forster's interpretation of Bond? This will most likely depend on personal preference. The action sequences are frenetic and chaotic. Extremely quick cuts to the point that rarely, could I tell who was doing what to whom, how or why until one, usually Bond, dusted him/herself off and walked away from the carnage. Martin Campbell knew how to let his action breathe and Casino Royale was better for it. Forster's busy approach didn't work for me, but that's my problem and as I say, that's not what this Bond was about. Every Bond, thank god, is different. And besides, if every misstep spelled disaster for the series, Bond would never have survived A View to a Kill or Timothy Dalton. What the director has delivered in spades, is character, flavour and feeling.

So Quantum of Solace achieves the rarity: an interesting character-driven, evocative action-blockbuster. I like Bond's direction. It means that Bond really is back to stay. In fact, he never left.
3/10
The name Quantum of Solace wasn't lived up to
Shadowlord07712 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is Daniel Craigs second Bond movie, and I'll be honest. Bond movies are moving away from laughable villains, absurd doomsday threats, and the occasional sexual innuendos into actual sexual scenes, disturbing villains and threats that will corrupt any 13 year-old mind out there. This trend of making fornication and violence glamorous and glorified is corruption, and one that will gain increasing momentum, destroying the foundations of Godly men and of the fear of God.

These new Bond movies are a long way from simply 'objectifying' women as sex objects. No, they still do that even much more as witnessed by the attempted forced rape scene of the waitress in this movie and James Bond kissing the naked back of a young female agent in bed. It's very much a delusion of society to believe that women are the same as men. For we know in 1 Timothy 2 13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. The idea of portraying women as commandeering in the movie is not because they are, but because of the script these women are paid to read and act they way they are told to. And in this way they do the opposite to what these movies lead some to believe.

I say this in a movie review because it's rarely said anymore. The truth is suppressed. These types of reviews are often frowned upon, but it's necessary to speak the truth that is the Lord Jesus Christ, who God has given to us. Matthew 10:2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

These movies should be rated R if they feature this kind of content.

For all those who'd like to hear the scripture on this: 1 Corinthians 11:8-11 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
-
mattkratz2 October 2018
This was basically "Bond Lite" without Q or any gadgets. Lots of chase scenes and stunts, of course, and a decent story, and Daniel Craig is decent as Mr.Bond, but other than that not too much to recommend. You might give it a try if you are a fan of the series.

** out of ****
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great plot!
ThomasColquith1 June 2021
"Quantum of Solace," named for an unrelated Ian Fleming short story, is a 9.0/10.0 for me primarily because of its bold, relevant, and daring plot and themes. In this film Bond is virtually on his own fighting a ruthless organization with ties to all of the levers of power -- governmental, corporate, and NGO's/non-profits. This story, set against the backdrop of Latin America and the battle for their resources, is one which few have the gumption to tell.

Any student of history knows the tragic stories of the various "Banana Republics" and their benefactors -- the unholy alliance of big fruit/agriculture companies and three letter agencies (ex. See the Arbenz coup in Guatemala). And the co-opting of the environmental movement by the villains to achieve their own selfish ends is a thought provoking warning. Hopefully not, but one day this film may prove prescient as fresh water is ultimately the most valuable resource, apart from fresh air.

Furthermore, the unique setting of Bolivia makes for an interesting film, though it was actually filmed on Chile's side of the Atacama desert; however authentic touches are added such as the popularity of Bowler hats with the women of Bolivia. The pacing is also good, this film is shorter than most Bonds and it felt like just the right length.

Now for the negatives which keep this film from being a 10.0. The filming style is choppy and cut hard and quick in parts, especially the opening car chase scene. Also, we are forced to watch Bond throw his dead friend's body in the dumpster. I understand Bond is in a hurry and has people after him, and girls and friends die all the time in Bond movies, but I would like to see him maintain his humanity, and show more sorrow, remorse, regret, etc. This has been an issue for me with the Daniel Craig era Bond films.

Bond's humanity is what makes him a great hero, it's what makes him relatable, and it makes his efforts all the more impressive because he is just a man, not a superman, but a man who can feel pain, fear, sadness, anxiety, exhaustion, etc. But he bears these human limitations and still defeats the villains. That is what is so great about the Bond stories. He is the man all men wish to be, to be able to travel, drive great cars, eat and drink well, get beautiful women, and bring order and justice to the world by defeating villainous scum. It really is a compelling fantasy.

If you liked this film also check out "The International" which deals with somewhat similar subject matter. Both were from around 2008-2009 when the global economy crashed after a weak dollar caused a commodity based inflationary boom and bust, which seemed to afford a window of opportunity for brave storytellers to reveal uncomfortable truths to previously complacent audiences about the long unseen rot in the system.

Sadly though, that window seems to have closed. Now, once again most persons are too invested in the current untenable paradigm to be bothered by the serious issues building silently just below the surface. This current collective system is one which requires obedience more than coherence, even to the point of delusion -- and though collective it may be, it is still delusion nonetheless.
2/10
Possibly the worst bond movie
info-14149 April 2009
Initially I would blame this bad movie on the writer as there can really only be one Ian Flemming but Barbara and Michael (the producers) have been around long enough to know what a real bond movie should look like. Bond has been popular all these years because he has style and the plot is witty. This film has neither of these elements.Its a hotch botch of lots of action and SFX sequences which aren't really cut well together but I suspect this is not entirely the editor's fault but maybe it is (I don't know what material he was given to work with). There seems to be a belief that lots of action, violence and special effects is what bond fans want. Well I for one don't look for that and I know friends who were equally disappointed with this film. This film is really bad writing and poor direction. Albert, Barbara's father, who created the bond films, would be restless in his coffin if he could see how his series has becoming. My advise to the producers and to the future director (sorry this film wasn't directed well) is to NOT start the next bond movie before you got a script that screams really as well as the Fleming books. Then find a director who knows how to give pace and style to the movie without needing to cut fast on every scene and who can hold an audience because of the characters and the way the scene in played out, without needing violence, action, sfx almost every time. Often action and sfx is an excuse to hold an audience which has nothing else to hold onto. Oh and Barbara stop trying to save money by bringing in the sponsors. The car chase at the beginning (shot badly) did'nt do justice to the opening of the film. It was so badly directed and cut. Most ridiculous were the sunglasses...Im guessing they were sponsors but maybe Im wrong, which would make it even more ridiculous. First the bad guy Green meets with his business partners on the pier and they're all wearing dark sunglasses which look strikingly similar and catchy. They talk as they stare away from each other in opposite directions..ouch what a yukky way of staging the scene like kids trying to play mafia bosses but parading instead with fashionable sunglasses almost like they're on a cat walk. I then couldn't believe my eyes when two similar sunglasses were dressed on Giancarlo and Daniel later ss they met alone in the middle of nowhere. Again it looked like some fashion statement but unfortunately the glasses don't help Craig who is already quite wooden in his acting. Really, i don't know if I expressed myself well enough here but this movie is really one of the worst in the series. Even the opening music wasn't chosen well. Im sure Barbara or Michael would argue that they've got to use a song that's more 'in' with today's times, so they went for this very beaty song that doesn't have the same memorable tunes that other bond movies leave you with. I'm 36 not 50, so im not being nostalgic from old age. I simply cant believe how experienced producers can make such a blunder. Sorry for being blunt.
5/10
Quantum of Subpar Solace
questl-1859221 January 2022
I always find it telling when I watch a movie in the last 48-72 hours and already struggle to remember the details. That's Quantum of Solace though. It's not an awful movie, just an unsubstantial one. It's trying, I wanna give it credit for trying but at the same time it feels so much like trying by committee rather than art. This effort to introduce a cabal of clandestine individuals set out to rule the world from the shadows, it keeps turning into a sticking point in these movies. Quantum obviously being the first offender but Spectre stumbles into the same mess later on.

Quantum also really begins the Haunting of Eva Green. For having such a brief fling with a backstabby end, lord she haunts these movies. This one kind've gets a pass because it takes place immediately after the events of Casino Royale but come on, Bond! You're a gin-soaked womanizer! I'm not buying this torch you hold for Vesper. We also get the weasel-esque Dominic as a sniveling villain that never inspires an ounce of fear or ire. He's too whiny, too much of a beta desperately trying to be alpha. It just feels ineffective, save for that one noise he makes before hitting himself in the foot. That was pretty funny and totally sums him up as complete and utter failure, one that Bond doesn't need to stop because, left to his own devices, he'll likely just kill himself.

There are some interesting aspects here, it's still gorgeous and I still think Craig is a solid Bond but so much of this is just underwhelming and meh. Two for two on opening songs though.
6/10
A brief comment on Quamtum of Solace.
MairegChernet16 November 2008
Okay here we go. QS delivers strong performances from all the actors and actresses, starting from Daniel Craig and Judi Dench all the way to Olga Kurylenko. It also features a breathtaking series of frequent action scenes, combined with wonderful special effects. In addition it displays a wide range of settings. While these positives might sway away those reading this, the negatives will definitely make them think twice. Okay here go the negatives.QS lags behind other Bond films including Casino Royale and those before it because of its bizarre plot, its unstable character build up, and its multitude of villains, who, I felt, did not get enough screen time. The James Bond suave, though debatable, is still there. The action in this one is still as riveting as in its predecessors, the Bond is still awesome. However QS is not as good as the other Bond films, yet Marc Forster should be proud of sustaining the delight in a saga that began before he was born...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Undeserved low rating
harald-3315 October 2021
A bit incoherent and unrefined it really deserves an "extended" edition, but a true Bond movie that contains all the elements you would expect. And Daniel Craig, of course.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bond #22: Going to Bolivia
unbrokenmetal24 March 2016
James Bond (Daniel Craig) chases the CEO of a dubious company, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who talks a lot about ecology and gives to charity, but has all kinds of dirty business going on. In Bolivia, he supports a general to become president in exchange for control over the country's water supply. The same general killed the family of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) years ago, and when Bond teams up with Camille because there isn't anyone else – M and the British secret service stop their support, while the Americans even are on his enemy's side – his job becomes entwined with her personal revenge. Whether Bond is also motivated by personal motives, dating back to the predecessor 'Casino Royale', remains unclear, at least he denies it when M asks him.

In my view, 'Quantum of Solace' is one of the poorest contributions to the series. The action of the movie is uninspired: a car chase, a boat chase, then a plane is shot down, and if you finally compare the boxy desert hotel to the amazing ice hotel in 'Die Another Day', you wonder where all the money went. The cast is not convincing, either: Mathieu Amalric is an easily forgettable villain, just a business guy in a white shirt, while Ukrainian Olga Kurylenko plays the Bolivian girl as if she was preparing for the role by staying a week on the sun bed and then put a silly wig on. It remains a mystery why the casting director didn't attempt to find a talented Latin American actress for the part? To add insult to injury, we get Beam, a CIA agent with a fake mustache who looks like a cartoon character (but is intended to be dead serious). Every scene he is in made me cringe in my seat. The title song is one of the rare cases that a Bond main theme is not memorable. Despite this long list of disappointments, the movie isn't entirely bad. 'Quantum of Solace' is well edited and photographed, deliberately less glossy than others of the series. The grainy look fits the desert location, for example. And Craig plays a good Bond, silent, tough and mean, with less lines than ever before which is an advantage.
7/10
Not the same old Bond, but entertaining
C-Younkin16 November 2008
Roger Moore came out this week and said that he doesn't like the new, ultra-violent Bond movies and that they were a sign of the changing times. Some moviegoers will probably feel the same way. "Quantum of Solace" lets us know in the first scene that Bond is a changed man, less concerned with cool and more with kicking ass. I recall only one scene, and a short one at that, where he beds a pretty Brit chick and I don't think I saw a shaken and stirred martini in the house. What I did see were some pretty nifty action sequences, surprisingly all of which look like director Marc Forster ("Finding Neverland," "Stranger than Fiction") lifted from director Paul Greengrass and the Jason Bourne series. They all have that shaky, hand-held, fly by the seat of your pants feel to them. I'll give Forster some credit though. I found the action impeccably realized, breathlessly fast-paced, and really suspenseful and new Bond Daniel Craig has brought toughness and swagger back to a character that seems to have been missing some of each in the past couple decades or so.

The plot is a little eh. It has something to do with the head of an eco-company named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalrac) putting together a master plan to promote some Bolivian general or something like that to president and in return he gets control of a Bolivian pipeline. It's supposedly a bad thing but I didn't really care that much. Bond gets involved because Greene is also responsible for the death of his love, Vesper Lynde, at the end of "Casino Royale." He teams up with latest Bond girl Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who oddly enough also has a score to settle and is sleeping with Greene in order to accomplish it. The two bounce around from Haiti to London to Bolivia trying to figure this whole mess out while M (Judi Dench) is under repeated pressure to get 007 under control.

The script, by Paul Haggis, Robert Wade, and Neal Purvis does what it sets out to do somewhat. It's a little weak but there are more than enough double crosses, red herrings, and frame-ups to distract from the fact that the story is underwhelming and hard to follow. Also a little hard to follow are the action sequences themselves, but like the "Bourne" movies, they also have adrenaline-pumping thrills. "Quantum" opens with what may be the best car chase of the year (cars narrowly evade other cars, smash into things, fall off cliffs, it's all fast-paced and brilliant) and from there goes to the best foot chase, going along rooftops and through windows and ending with two guys having a gunfight while dangling from ropes. It's undeniably impressive and I haven't even gotten to the boat chase or Bond narrowly escaping an attacked airplane. It's all really exciting thrill-a-minute stuff, and doesn't let up for a second.

Unfortunately a key plot device does get lost in all the mayhem. The idea of revenge and Bond's vulnerability at having lost his love never really come through as well as they should. It's too bad because Daniel Craig, along with being one of the most bad-ass, handsome, and lethal Bonds ever, also tries to dig a little deeper to find the vulnerability that comes with the super-spy job. It's not something you normally see and the filmmakers don't give you very long to see it here either. The rest of the cast is all game, the best being the always classy, dignified, and authoritative Judi Dench. Mathieu Amalrac does his best but his character represents one of the bigger problems with the Bond franchise in the last couple installments. We keep seeing the same average guy with a lunatic fringe and it's a pretty weak characterization. And Olga Kurylenko holds her own, being one of the hottest and most fiery Bond girls to hit the screen.

"Quantum of Solace," with all its flaws, is still entertaining due to some really nifty action sequences and Craig's overwhelming appeal. The posh locations and the OO7 name may be the only things that have hung around, and in trying to bring itself into the 21st century it may be trying too hard to be a "Bourne"-clone, but the series is still showing strong signs of life and for a guy coming up on his 23rd film, that's quite an achievement.
6/10
Good and Bad
Moviefanguy21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a decent flick, not the best Bond ever (that would be Goldfinger) nor the worst (Moonraker). I saw two problems with this film. First Mathiu Amalric, while a fine actor, is just not menacing enough to be a Bond villain. He struck me as more like just a spoiled kid from a wealthy family. I just didn't buy that he could do much to Bond. Maybe he was cast because he is kind of short, and wouldn't tower over the sub 6 feet Craig. Second, the action sequences were edited so fast they were disorienting. Perhaps this is a generational problem, as my 11 year old son had no problem with that part. I liked the fact that Quantum was basically Enron, though less diabolical (one plan of Enron was to take control of all the potable water in the world, not just one country. No Kidding.) One thing that there is nothing wrong with is Daniel Craig as Bond. Kind of shortish for Bond but very physical and knows when to throttle back and give other actors their space. As my son, who has seen every Bond film says, "Daddy, he's a MEAN Bond!" Memo to Michael Wilson; please get a more worthy opponent for Bond next time.
7/10
Three cheers for Fleming's Bond.
scott-sw20 November 2008
James Bond returns for his 22nd adventure, picking up right after Casino Royale ended. However, while he finds leads, they are elusive, and mysterious. After his first lead dries up, he ventures to Boliva and finds his nemesis: an ecological terrorist bent on withholding natural resources from the native people of South America. He also meets his Bond girl, Olga Kuryenko. She vows revenge on the Hunta leader who slaughtered her family. The trail leads to a strange, bizarre group of powerful people in the world who desire to manipulate and control the economics of the world. Through terrorism? Through murder? It is still not clear, even at the end of the movie. There were several things I liked about this one. The first was Daniel Craig who plays Bond the way he was meant to be played: like a ruthless assassin. He does have a license to kill, right. This is also the first real sequel, keeping many characters from the previous one like M (Judi Dench), Mathis, and a frustrated, on-edge Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright). The fight scenes are fabulous, and the action scenes have more believability than most over-the-top Bond movies. I also liked the villain in this one because he was not bent on "ruling the world" as so many Bond villains want. I have seen many critiques, blasting this film because it has "borrowed" from Jason Bourne movies (does anyone notice a similarity in initials--also think about Jack Bauer from 24). I am sure it did influence Bond--mostly by bringing 007 a healthy dose of realism. The cartoonish and outlandish flamboyanies of Brosnan and Moore really grated on my nerves. There were a few downsides to this one. Some of the action shots were haphazard and incoherent. I think director Marc Foster, being so green, did not know how to shoot an action film. Many people are dissing this one because it lacks gadgets. Roger Ebert said he missed "Q," and the massive overbearing megalomaniac villains. Not me. You see, there are two types of Bond fans. The first type, like me, has read the books and short stories created by Ian Fleming. The second type are the ones who grew-up watching all the James Bond flicks (the good ones and the bad ones) for four decades. In all honesty, the latter (for the most part) was the Bond of Cubby Brocoli, not Ian Fleming. If you want the Brocoli Bond, then rent the videos with Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan to your heart's delight and enjoy the cheesiness. That way you can get the cheesy gadgets and megalomaniacs. If you want the Bond Fleming created, look to Quantum of Solace. It is not nearly as good as Casino Royale, but still up there.
9/10
Hard hitting continuation of Casino Royale
kieran-wright10 November 2008
OK, so let me first say that, without sounding sexist, this is more of a boy's movie, being action-packed pretty much from start to finish. Also, I would say that this and Casino Royale are really two sides of the same coin, so making sure that the events and characters from CR are fresh in your mind will make this film even more enjoyable than it actually is. Incidentally, the only reason that I voted this as a nine rather than a ten is that the camera work in the first 20 minutes or so was a little too close for my liking, resulting in a slightly choppy ride for the viewer. That said, this could have been a tack to draw the viewer in in terms of realism.

This will particularly appeal to the male species circa 12 and upwards. Don't believe the negative reviews - this is as good as it gets!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
My name is Bond, James ... who?
hgeurtsen24 March 2009
Ever since I first visited a Bond movie (I think it was Moonraker), I always look forward to the next one. So I also was looking forward to Quantum of Solace. For the first time in the Bond history, a sequel. And also for the first time in the Bond history, I was very disappointed about this movie. Not for being it a very short Bond movie, not for having a bad Bond girl; Olga Kurylenko plays a very delightful one. No, the problem for me is that this simply isn't a Bond movie. It is a pretty good action movie (although for me a bit modern and neurotically shot), but no humor, almost no gadgets, not Q grumbling at Bond for smashing up another fully featured car, not a handful of beautiful women flocking Bond, not even a Martini, shaken, not stirred… And what is the happy ending of almost each Bond movie? Right, Bond being untraceable and a beautiful Bond girl whispering "Oh James" in his ear. This one doesn't. It's just suddenly over and a full house of cinema visitors looking disillusioned… was this really it? Too bad, but if Daniel Craig also plays the next Bond, they lost me as a Bond fan. Because for me, Craig isn't a real Bond either. He has beautiful blue eyes, but he is too rough, is not a charmer and lacks humor. But my daughter, who visited her first Bond movie, liked it. So maybe I am just getting to old for this new generation of Bond movies. Maybe I just have to spend my nights with an old Bond with Connery, Moore or Brosnan
6/10
Bond Goes Pulp
slokes14 June 2010
It's not the best of the Bonds, but "Quantum Of Solace" does manage to disprove one common knock against the series: If you've seen one Bond, you've seen them all.

A gritty, tense little pulp-fiction thriller as far removed from a Roger Moore globe-jaunt as you can get, "Quantum" pits Bond (Daniel Craig) against his boss, his country, and even the CIA as he battles the people who killed his lover at the end of the last film. With its gray morality, fast cutting, and noir-ish shadings, it borrows less from other Bonds ("License To Kill" being the closest) than it does from the Jason Bourne series.

"When one is young, it seems very easy to distinguish between right and wrong," Bond is told. "But when you get older, it gets much more difficult."

Okay, so we're all a little older, and so you can accept Bond movies getting more complicated. It's easy enough with Craig in command. His signature jaw clench is getting to be as familiar and welcome to me as Connery's smirk and Moore's eyebrow. And since he's continuing the plot line from "Casino Royale", he has to be a hard-charging type. In fact he's even less humorous than he was there, dwelling as he does on past hurts, reinventing Bond as a man who feels.

The problem with "Quantum" the movie is it doesn't have much going for it beyond Craig's deepening of the role. Like a pulp-fiction tale, the emphasis is on action and speed, and the plot - something to do with resource-theft in Bolivia - is just an excuse for betrayals and hidden-body reveals. It's endearing to see a Bond movie that tries to be interesting for something other than being a Bond movie, but the quick-cutting approach works against any clear narrative flow.

Olga Kurylenko does stand out as the main Bond girl, a woman on a mission like Bond's so there's little time for dalliances. Giancarlo Giannini has another plum turn as Mathis, 007's suspicious ally. Judi Dench grows more into the role of M now that she has a sincere actor in Craig to play off of and isn't pushing the girl-power vibe so hard. It's hard imagining this film playing as well without her as Bond's disapproving yet sympathetic mother-superior.

Craig's electricity and economy with dialogue and motion ("There's something horribly efficient about you...") reminds me of Steve McQueen, and "Quantum" works best when it leans on that. But if Craig is truly to grow in the part - hoping Bond will return someday as there is some question about it now - he may need to ease up a bit, and offer occasional displays of humor and charm.

All work and no play could make Jim a dull boy. But it beats the other extreme any day.
6/10
The Last Half Of A Bond Movie
Mack595 February 2010
As the other reviewer commented, there is something wrong with this Bond movie. Firstly it was rushed to avoid the writer's strike, secondly it seemed more Bourne than Bond (even the same editor). The movie runs like the last half of a Bond movie, the action part that happens after the plot and characters has been established. The problem is that all the build up to Quantum Of Solace has occurred in the previous Bond, Casino Royale. So you have to watch both movies back to back ( if you have a spare 4 and a bit hours ) to get fully involved and engaged Quantum Of Solace. Perhaps the big mistake was making this a direct continuation of Casino Royale rather than the other stand-alone Bond epics. Lets hope Bond 23 will be an improvement.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No Fun in this Bond Film
starsmark-16 April 2019
I'm not going to write about the contents of this film as other reviewers have already done this quite well. I haven't seen a Bond film in years and this was the first one I've seen with Daniel Craig playing Bond. Craig is a good actor but his portrayal of Bond is completely devoid of charm, charisma or wit. Perhaps it's the script. Or not. James Bond is an iconic character and to portray him this way is very disappointing.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum of Something
jinky-blahblah18 November 2008
Still not sure exactly how the title fits in to the story, though there are a couple of throwaway lines that attempt to let us know, and if you've read the Fleming novels you already know.

It's worth seeing but don't go expecting the tight dialogue, depth of (intriquing) character development or tight story-line of Casino Royale. About all that the newest film has in common with the last one is Daniel Craig.

And Judi Dench, who is much more charismatic, solid and focused than any of the other characters. But I suspect that's due more to her as an actor. There was much opportunity to explore the dynamics and relationship of 007 and M but it got either dismissed or overlooked.

The characters are flat, the dialogue is watery and the story is convoluted. It's as though the film makers started out with one idea, got sidetracked with first one idea, then another and ended up waaaaay down the rabbit hole with no good way out. Alas, there are plenty of opportunities to hit the restroom, get a snack, see what else is playing in the theater . . .

Quantum resembles more the Pierce Brosnan Bond films - which I never thought were very good. Coming on the heels of Casino Royale this is a bit of a letdown.
6/10
Marc Foster's follow-up to Casino Royale is unfortunately one of the lesser entries in the legacied Spy series.
IonicBreezeMachine28 December 2021
Following the events of Casino Royale, James Bond (Daniel Craig), Bond has captured Le Chiffre's partner, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) for interrogation. Craig is still dealing with inner turmoil from the death of Vesper Lynd and following White's escape, traces a number of Le Chiffre's marked currency to Port au Prince where Greene Planet CEO, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), is in actuality working for the criminal Organization, Quantum, intent on creating a coup d'etat to establish exiled Bloivian General Medrano (Joaquín Cosío) in Bolivia's seat of power. Bond's quest for vengeance against Quantum becomes tangled with Bolivian agent, Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) who's on her own quest for retribution that ties into Bond's.

Casino Royale had the arduous task of reintroducing Bond with a new actor and grittier approach following years of the gadget reliant Bond formula culminating in the critically disappointing but financially successful Die Another Day. Casino Royale was haled by many as the best Bond in years and with critical and commercial success from the film established credibility with Daniel Craig as Bond. Taking its title from an Ian Fleming Bond short story (that has no connection to the film's plot), the producers took the film in a direction that tackled environmental corruption as a way to distinguish itself from the previous film's focus on terrorism and the financial interests thereof with a story heavily inspired by Bolivia's water issues as well as the Water Revolt. The film was hampered by the 2007-08 Writers Strike with the only changes made to the final script being able to come from exchanges between Marc Foster and Daniel Craig. With Quantum of Solace's runtime of only an hour and 46 minutes, the movie feels less substantive this time around with the stakes carrying less weight and an all around "lesser" effort in comparison to its predecessor.

When Quantum of Solace begins, we're thrown into a very chaotic car chase sequence with no prompting that we've no idea why it's going on until after it's over. The chase is also overcut with the action filmed way too close and the editing being absolutely headache inducing with shots that last fractions of a second before cutting to something else in a way that doesn't allow the viewer to take in spatial geography or the scale of the action. Most of the action sequences have this problem with the difference between Martin Campbell's and Marc Foster's handling of action sequence being night and day. Foster is a good director, with films like Stranger than Fiction, Finding Neverland, and Christopher Robin showing the man is strong at with character based drama, but his handling of action (as seen in World War Z) has never been a strong suit for him. The performances are quite well done with Daniel Craig's Bond conveying a barely contained festering inner rage driving his actions and Olga Kurylenko's Camille serving as a mirror to Craig's Bond with their shared link of seeking revenge. But much like the Timothy Dalton Bond, License to Kill, where Bond was also motivated by vengeance, the villain and the stakes are rather lacking with Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene falling well within the bland forgettability of Robert Davi's Franz Sanchez from License to Kill. Amalric's Greene is just not all that imposing of a presence in the film and is unfortunately a poor follow-up to Mads Mikkelson's Le Chiffre and doesn't have any standout scenes or commanding moments where he portrays any true menace.

Quantum of Solace feels like a "placeholder" film that only exists to close out the book on threads from Casino Royale, but it doesn't even do that particularly well as their really only followed through on at the beginning and end of the film. The movie in between is a low stakes plot involving a country's water rights that isn't given any added weight or reason to care and its villains are threatening or charismatic enough to elevate it. The action sequences are also poorly done with an admittedly large scale, but the camera work and editing is too close and too quick to fully appreciate them. Bond and Kurylenko do give solid performances with individual scenes where their character's shine through in discussing their inner pain, but with the stakes and action pretty underwhelming Quantum of Solace ends up as an unexceptional entry in the franchise.
7/10
Alot of harsh reviews
jenkothetarheel30 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skimming through the reviews quickly just to get an idea of what the consensus of the film is and I see a lot of people saying "unwatchable", or "worst bond film ever". Well I think these are a bit dramatic. I liked this movie because it shows a more intense, and driven bond that we aren't used to. Sure it has its flaws( like how he opened his parachute 20 feet off of the ground and lived) amongst a couple other things. Aside from that this was a decent action film. There are plenty of good action sequences, and fight scenes throughout.
6/10
Not a good james bond but a good action movie
AvionPrince1621 August 2021
The movie is quiet short and follow after the end of casino royale. Quantum of solace contain some good fight and some memorable action but that s it. The story is quite classic and dont do justice to casino royale who aim for something more human. Like i said it was a good action movie but not a good james bond. Its still pleasant to watch but i was a little bit disappointed, i expected more. But i can still recommend it for the action part but thats it, even the characters are "cliché" and dont make them interesting, even the love scene was less interesting and make us wanted more of the movie until the end when we understand that will not have what we wanted. Disappointed!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A 9/10 story edited into an 8/10 movie
blippster30 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well I had high expectations after Casino Royale as you can imagine. Royale had a brilliant storyline, which, under the direction of Martin Campbell, was made into a brilliant film. The best Bond there was in my opinion.

Two years later, Quantum of Solace was released. I was a bit worried about it because I knew that Campbell (one of my favourite directors) was not directing this time. I only hoped that the new director would know what he was doing.

Quantum had a great story behind it. One of the best Bond story lines that there have been (although not quite up to Royale's standards). It had great actors in it. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are back as good as ever, but the outstanding performances came from Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene and Jesper Christensen as Mr. White.

The thing that really let Quantum down was the editing. The first scene and the last scene are the scene's one generally remembers the best from any film, and I must say this film's opening scene was horrible. Each shot was less than a second long, and the camera was moving far too quickly to work out what the hell was going on. When the car rolled off the cliff at the end of the scene, I was under the impression that there were still two more cars chasing Bond. The editing could not have made it less clear.

But enough of that unpleasantness; it is indeed a great film and a worthy follow-up to Casino Royale. A good 8/10.
6/10
Emo Bond
the_Poppuns14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I wasn't very impressed with this Bond film. The action sequences were alright. But looking back I think 'Get Smart' had more impressive action sequences. The story was, well, I'm not even sure what the story was. I could barely hear the dialogue and I'm not sure if it was my theater but I did hear all the punches and glass breaking just fine. It seems it was about oil or something, but then not really. I dunno. I'm not sure that the plot really matters much in most Bond films so that's not that big a deal but what really bothered me was how much the focus was not on Bond. I mean it almost seemed at one point that the whole film was revolving around the Bond girl getting revenge. Why in God's name should I care who did what to some Bond girl's relative? And why would I give a rat's patootie if she get's revenge or not? And I'm sorry but why was I watching an old lady take off her makeup and draw a bath? Who cares about that? I want gadgets, menacing bad guys, actiony action. It was pretty much missing here. There was one guy who was prominently portrayed in a photo Bond was carrying around who was on screen for about 2 minutes, and I'm not really sure that he said anything, but he was hot. I would have liked to have seen more of him and exactly what happened to him. But no, our villain was the guy from 'Diving Bell and the Butterfly' and the action sequences in that film were almost as good and numerous as the ones here.

I really don't know why I'm giving this a 6/10. It's probably worse than that, but I like Daniel Craig and I guess for most of it I stopped paying attention and daydreamed a better Bond movie starring Mr. Craig and myself. ;) By all means, see it yourself, especially if you're a Bond fan but I didn't like it. For the record, I liked 'Casino Royale' quite a bit but I didn't enjoy the Eva Green business either. But in that case the rest of the movie was good enough to balance out all the girl power. Not this time.
4/10
Quantum of Solace.....what is the fuss?
elias_devries15 November 2008
I really don't get why the critics at large are speaking so favorably. The film's plot is hollow and flimsy (surprising given Paul Hagis involvement). It's all action and ridiculous scenarios of plot, which don't stick to reality. I know bond films do this but at least in the past they were fun. This is dark and has too much action. And I really despise Daniel Craig's thug link monosyllabic performance. He just isn't likable. I suppose if one fancies him it would make a big difference. No depth whatsoever!!! Judy Dench is great as usual and shot well, good music but falls apart with the plot and Daniel Craig's listless macho characterization!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Is this a good Bond movie?
kumar_amit-517-86632130 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A car chase, rooftop chase, apartment fight, Boat scene, Opera shootout, plane scene, elevator bust-up,hotel shoot-out.. all in 106mins of a psychopath Bond on a revenge rampage, whilst unravelling an evil plot, pissing off special branch and the CIA& losing some friends on the way

Is this a good 'Bond film'? Probably not-Bond isn't cheerful and charming enough throughout. Is this a good film about Bond? Yes.

I love the James Bond formula of the exotic locations, the gadgets, women with innuendo names, genius villains&crazy strong henchmen trying to blow up the world.

However this is primarily a character driven story of Bond coming to terms with the Vesper situation, Did she betray him, why? who was her bf? It's only at the end of the movie you realise that this definitely was Bond's primary motivator. Having all the bond formula in this story would dissolve the whole revenge/ solace flex.

The action scenes are fast, ruthless&angry- they are a metaphor for his emotions. The action scenes themselves tell a story instead of being self-contained forced but really fun set pieces. Due to the Bond's 'accidental'casualty count the audience&M are left wondering if Bond has gone over the edge.

The other aspect of the plot is what the Green Planet front are up to.There is also no world domination via one plan but a more up-to-date realistic organisation. They are clearly bad but their plan is unclear. Is it land?government? oil?-It ends up being the water supply of a country. We take this confusing journey with Bond. Therefore, fittingly, the name of the organisation is Quantum. Greene Planet is simply one of many 'evil'plans they have. The name to me also conveys how small Bond is to this organisation, he is not the their centre of attention until the end- The bad guy doesn't invite him to dinner& reveal his plan...Similarly Bond doesn't care about Greene (until he kills Field's), he wants what he knows about Vesper. There is nothing over the top about Greene, his just in charge of this one Quantum project, a grimy small French businessman.

The CIA are 'in bed with Greene' &so are aspects of the British government too. Bond is ordered to stop but they are clearly up to no good. Motivated by his revenge and/or his duty he continues anyway.

This reminds me of a Mathus quote where he speaks of good and evil becoming 'blurred' and an Ian fleming quote from Casino Royale

"Today we are fighting Communism. Okay. If I'd been alive fifty years ago, the brand of Conservatism we have today would have been damn near called Communism and we should have been told to go and fight that. History is moving pretty quickly these days and the heroes and villains keep on changing parts."

Greene, Greene Planet &their relationship with governments are a perfect up to date example to Fleming's quote in the real world.

Bond's relationship with M is tested. Especially after Agent Field's death. Field's (a Bond girl) was a woman bedded by Bond within 5 minutes of meeting her, classic 007 style. However her death is cleverly used to further Bond's character development. Covered in oil, M questions Bond if he even cares. In turn the audience questions it. Bond comes back and confirm's he does with a heartfelt speech. There was more character development in 5 minutes of QoS then most Bond's combined (as their should be because it's part of the origin story!).

The Bond girl he meets on the way, Camille, mirrors Bond's pain - she wants revenge too. Probably the closest a bond girl has got to being Bond's equal since Xenia. She actually gets her revenge by herself...she just needs saving because of her one weakness of fire from her childhood. Oh&Bond doesn't bed her at the end because that wouldn't make any sense. This is perhaps the most forward thinking Bond for women, just because Camille was sleeping with the bad guy doesn't mean that Bond automatically gets to bed her. Compare this to the sex slave in Skyfall...

At the finale of the film the revenge count stacks up. Bond want's Greene for vesper, but he also wants revenge for Field's death and the head of Police for Mathus' death, and Camille is after the General for murdering her family.

When the film ends, Bond finds what he was looking for and gets his Solace, and becomes the more well rounded Bond we know. M say's ' I want you back'. Bond says 'I never left'. Then the Bond intro happens. This is when you realise what the whole point of the film was if you were still confused.

So much stuff is crammed into 106 minutes, it's amazing! However the problem with this film was that the vesper's death and betrayal happened at the end of the previous film. Then this film was too short and moved so fast that the references and reminders of his motivation just couldn't sink in. That combined with the addition of Bond&audience unravelling a mystery evil plan was information overload. When I first watched the film I was confused, later I watched it back to back with Casino Royale and I fully appreciated it.

This is not a classic Bond film. However it's a brilliant much needed part of the collection that I love. I expected a classic Bond films to follow this one but they went with skyfall rebooting Craig's Bond's feeling all over again. Now I'm unsure about what to think about what direction the franchise is taking- you can't keep having character development Bond movies, that's not what Bond is about- His already a well rounded super spy. You can have it in the originally intended origin story but now can we get back to normal Bond please - you know the Bond that has managed to last 50 years.
8/10
James Bond is Back in Action.
DesbUK14 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Quantum of Solace' opens oddly in the middle of a scene - a destructive high speed car chase along the Italian coast, all burning tyres, crashes and bullets. This is James Bond (Danial Craig) delivering the chief baddie Mr White to an MI6 safe house in Sienna. The problem here is that since the film does not re-cap the final scene of 'Casino Royale' (Bond tracking down Mr White to his Italian castle and shooting him in the leg), then unless you're familiar with the previous film, you'll be baffled as to what is going on.

The credits are the best ever for a Bond film, and they're followed by a breathtaking and dangerous looking chase through the sewers and across the roofs - Bond chasing M's bodyguard, who, it transpires, is a double-agent. It concludes with them crashing through a glass ceiling and fighting for their guns on collapsing scaffolding.

'Quantum of Solace' strips Bond of the iconography which defines the series: no Bond theme until the end, no gadgets (other than a nifty table in M's London office), no 'The name's Bond, James Bond', no Q and Moneypenny and the gunbarrell logo rather pointlessly appears at the end of the film.

The film also is hindered by the dullest scheme ever by a Bond villain - a plot to control Bolivia's water supply!! Whilst the MI5 heroes of the BBC's 'Spooks' week in and week out save Britain from cyber attacks, nuclear bombs, germ warfare, it hard to care about whether Domonic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) succeeds in becoming a public utility supplier. The film's attitude to world affairs is curious too - the baddies aren't the FSB or the Iranians or any of the obvious candidates, but a SPECTRE-like crime syndicate who, in the words of Mr White, "have people everywhere" and hold a meeting during an outdoor production of 'Tosca'.

And yet, the whole film moves at such a breathless pace between Europe, Hiati and Bolivia that it's always enjoyable. Craig is a hard as nails Bond and the best 007 to date; Olga Kurylenko as tanned and gorgeous as the avenging Camille and Judi Dench has a much expanded role as a globe trotting M.

But the reason people watch these films are the succession of set pieces and here they're delivered superbly: a speedboat chase: a plane chase: Bond and Camille jumping out of a plane with only one parachute between them and a climactic fight with Greene in an exploding hotel out in the desert.

The chief baddie Mr White escapes and, like Blofeld back in the 1960s, will no doubt re-surface in the next adventure. The producers have constantly re-invented Bond throughout the decades to keep the films fresh and interesting. On the evidence the series has a lot of life left in it.
4/10
The Nadir of the James Bond Series
carologletree26 January 2016
This film is just not what I want Bond to be. Like "Casino Royale," this is a lackluster film, but for totally different reasons.

Daniel Craig is once again more Bourne than Bond. This was a problem in "Casino Royale", and it is far, far more apparent here. Olga Kurylenko's Bond girl is so forgettable that I can barely remember her.

Dominic Greene is another dull villain. Mathieu Amalric is a good actor, but his character was so boring that it doesn't matter.

The action scenes are totally ruined by the "shaky-cam." Having the camera shaking and showing everything at weird angles whenever an action scene or car chase comes doesn't "get us in the action" by any means. If anything, it makes us dizzy and we can barely see what's going on. This didn't work in the "Bourne" movies, so why on Earth did they think it would work in Bond?

The story was also nothing special, and the film was too short. "Another Way To Die" is a good song, though, and we get to see Judi Dench again as M, which is always nice.

"Casino Royale" was a lackluster film buoyed by a few saving graces. This film doesn't have as many saving graces. It is the worst Bond film in the official series, and only marginally better than the horrid unofficial Bond film, "Never Say Never Again." This is simply an action film that happens to have Bond in it. Thankfully, the franchise would go right back on track with the next film.

RATING: D+
6/10
Merely Style Over Substance
martimusross17 January 2022
Quantum Of Solace

It was 48 minutes in before we had any real attempt at inserting a story. It was just set action sequence after sequence, to suggest there was a proper script is absurd.

Very much a continuation of Casino Royale with Vesper the love interest. Her duplicity or not and Bond's grief seem insufficient motivational heft to hang a Bond movie on, and so it turned out to be, this was style over substance at every turn.

When you have this collection of fabulous acting talent, and believe me they threw their all into the project, it is a major disappointment to rely on Craig's chiselled visage and Dench's comic timing to anchor the drama.

At best this is a weak 6 outta 10, watchable, instantly forgettable and lacking in story.
4/10
A lot of bang for the buck but where's the Bond?
sgoodyear200318 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes, there's a spectacular opening car chase sequence. And, if you're into chases, this is a film for you. Every type of chase is here. But, there's nothing new. If you've been to only a few of the numerous spy thriller, mystery-suspense, superhero, race car, action adventure movies in the last decade, then you've seen this movie--over and over. Yawn. What's missing is that special James Bond element you get with Sean and Roger. There's nothing too memorable about Quantum. I saw the movie a few hours ago and the title still doesn't make much sense. The two villains are forgettable--a wimp and supposedly mean general straight out of central casting. Did I get that right that the general is from Russia but is now dictator of Bolivia? I've already forgotten their names. That's probably due to a confusing plot. Minor characters come and go for no good reason. Why is the CIA and that Italian guy in this thing at all? Where is the lovable psycho scientist vying for world domination? Where are the new gadgets? OK, I did like the eye popping touch screen computer but sensuality and laughs are out. OK, one of the girls looked cute--shrug--and I slightly chuckled once, maybe twice.
6/10
Not bad 2nd Craig Bond
Ibuk20 September 2009
OK this is my third comment on QOS, the first one got so many negative responses I felt I had no choice but to delete, the second one I didn't feel do it justice and now this is my third(in fact I have never had to do so many reviews for one movie before). Those who did catch my first comment before I deleted it will know that I was repulsed by it(I remember using the phrase about it belonging at the bottom of Hollywood's sewer). On my second viewing I was rather surprised about the fact that I actually enjoyed it(which prompted me to delete my original review). On my third viewing I really enjoyed it, in fact a lot more than some of the older Bond movies(YOLT,DAF,LALD, TMWTGG, Octopussy,AVTAK and the Brosnan Bond's not including GE which I like. QOS takes place right after Casino Royale. Bond, still reeling after Vesper's betrayal goes on the hunt for businessman Dominic Greene who has brought a plot of land in a desert. It soon transpire that Dominic Greene plans to take control of Bolivia's water supply. Add to that a vengeful Bond girl(Camille) who wants to kill Colonel Medrano who has links to Dominic Greene and you have an intensely gripping Bond movie.

What I didn't like about QOS on my first viewing is what I enjoy so much about it now. For instance on my first viewing I found the character of Dominic Greene rather ordinary but I realise now that is part of his appeal. The producers wanted to give a QOS a more grounded feel to it and therefore didn't make Dominic Greene into some megalomaniac but wanted to make him more understated and seem more human than previous Bond villains like Blofeld for instance. Another thing I enjoy about QOS now that I didn't like on my first viewing is how it toffs it caps to previous Bond movies. I love the Goldfinger tribute when Strawberry Fields is killed by Greene and is dowsed in Oil.

QOS, although it received mainly positive feedback from fans it has also received much negativity. I think the negativity comes from the fact that at time QOS doesn't feel like a Bond movie. It is more to the point than most Bond movies, at just under 110 minutes it is probably one of the shortest Bond movie. QOS has not only appealed to fans of Bond but also from non Bond fans. I think gaining appreciation from non Bond fans is vitally important if the producers want to franchise to continue and be successful. I think QOS's main strength is it's action sequences, in particular the opening car chase. I don't know what the general consensus about the action sequences in QOS but I find them to be shockingly brutal.

What I learnt about QOS on my third viewing is that it's one of those Bond movies which some Bond fans may have to watch more than once to fully appreciate it's brilliance.
6/10
A step to far?
aersen4 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Here is a franchise that clearly wants to set itself apart from its roots. Casino Royale already set the tone and managed to capture its audience with its more realistic approach when compared to the later Brosnan's interpretation of the legendary spy. No more invisible car, or gadgets we will still dream of in 100 years, were relatively well welcomed by the audience but Quantum of Solace pushes the concept even further. Bond is now driving cars with window that shatters on bullet impact, he is no longer immune to punches, and seems to hurt himself when falling from a 3 stories roof... He now also expresses human feelings. After exploring love, Bond is animated by his thirst of vengeance making him forget his original assignment, projecting an image of an assassin at times instead of the secret agent we all know... this new style stays in line with the previous movie but some things appear to be missing and distorting the Bond experience. Out of the window the Vodka Martini, the "My name is Bond... James Bond" or even the original theme which only appears at the end credit... is that a step to far?

This is not where the film really disappoints. This sequel is let down by a poor script. The story is rushed bringing the audience from one location to another without any connection, the plot and motives of the villain could have been rethought. He is more motivated by pulling off his scam rather than terrorising the people and being evil. Does he really deserve his fate....

Thankfully it is not all gloomy in Bond's new universe. Daniel Craig gives another charismatic performance making the character more believable. The stunning action scenes and stunts will certainly satisfy those looking for popcorn action in the theatre.

So in a sentence, stirred but not shaken!
10/10
James Bond on a mission of vengeance.
bluesman-2018 August 2012
Quantum of Solace. It isn't your usual Bond film. Which is a good thing. James Bond is on a mission of revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd. Along the way he learns the truth about her. And the truth about himself. Bond is grieving but refuses to acknowledge it. He buries himself in his work. His assignment find out who was behind Vesper's betrayal and the answer is a shadowy organization which they didn't even know existed. Quantom. Quantom is made up of the rich and powerful they're end goal is to control all the resources a country can offer. In this case it's oil. Bond rushes to prevent them from doing that. and in his haste he kills a member of the Prime Minster's secret Service. Hunted and alone Bond must bring Quantum down before they seize they're goal. Not a bad story as far as Bond's go. It's a lot more mature Bond that we're used to seeing. Daniel Craig has stepped up nicely to the position as the Best Bond since Sean Connery. Judi Dench gives a iconic performance as M. IF the future Bond films are made like this or along the same lines it may be said we have a new James Bond for the mature fans. Gone is the quipping every few seconds jumping into bed with every willing female. Here is Bond as Fleming intended and as Connery Created. A Cold Emotionaless Killing machine dedicated to only his duty. And his dedication to M and his status as 007. This is a New JAmes Bond. Better then Jason Bourne by far. And more entertaining by far.
4/10
Bland, James Bland or Royale With Cheese
zofos12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After getting everything so right with "Casino Royale" (one of the best Bond movies, and, for me, THE best), the producers of the James Bond series have gotten its sequel all wrong with several strange decisions. From giving the movie the pointless title of "Quantum of Solace" (which only highlights the lack of Ian Fleming material they had to work with) to the awful, grinding dirge that they selected as the song by Jack White and Alicia Keys, things are already off to a bad start from the second the film kicks off.

Things get worse with their choice of Olga Kurylenko as the lead actress. After the fully-rounded character of Vesper Lynd and the unusual, yet fitting choice of the elegant Eva Green to play her in "Casino Royale", the casting of Bond's love interest was going to be crucial in the next movie. Vesper is a hard act to follow, especially as she is one of the few women in Bond history to actually get past Bond's defensive coldness and right into his heart. Unfortunately, the producers have reverted to casting a typical, bland, model-type who can't act as their choice of Bond babe. With her thick accent and English as her second language, Ms. Kurylenko mangles every line of dialogue she's given and it's often hard to understand what she's saying. There is also zero chemistry between her and Daniel Craig (there isn't even much sex in this movie or humour for that matter, vital ingredients in the best Bond movies). They hardly seem to notice each other. It's like they're acting in different movies.

Matthieu Amalric, as the Roman Polanski-lookalike villain, can't hold a candle to Le Chiffre in the last Bond movie. The fight between him and Bond at the end is laughable. He's stick-thin and tiny while the ripped Daniel Craig towers over him in height and width. Yet, we're expected to believe that he could beat up James Bond. Rubbish.

Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter is also completely wasted in this movie. He is given nothing to do having had such an important part to play in "Casino Royale."

The cinema I saw this in had the sound cranked up to the max which meant that the music and action scenes were absolutely deafening, the loudest I have ever heard in a cinema. It made for uncomfortable viewing, but that still didn't stop me spotting what a dodgy film this is.

The action scenes are totally perfunctory with no passion or inspiration behind them (particularly that time-wasting plane chase halfway through). The best action scenes in movies always come from the characters (look at how the classic car chase in "The French Connection" means so much because we've already seen the vicious villain kill a man in cold blood in the opening scene. He then tries to assassinate Gene Hackman's character, misses and kills a woman pushing a baby carriage. Gene Hackman desperately pursues him in a classic edge-of-the-seat car chase and we care because we want to see that nasty piece of work get his comeuppance. Here Daniel Craig fights baddies we know nothing about, so we don't care if he gets them or not. There is nothing personal between them.) It feels like the writers just throw in an action scene every ten minutes because they feel they have to obey the rules of action screen writing. Must do better next time, guys.

There are also too many references to other Bond movies, making it look like the writers were stuck for ideas and had to copy what had gone before. From having a girl on a bed covered with oil (instead of being covered with gold like Shirley Eaton was in "Goldfinger") to Bond dangling a baddie off a roof to force him to give up information (which Roger Moore did in "The Spy Who Loved Me") to the writers mostly ripping off the plot of "Licence To Kill" by having Bond disobey orders and become a rogue agent pursuing a vendetta against a criminal organisation. The movie lacks freshness and you feel like you've seen it all before, probably because you have.

"Casino Royale" was Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel and the last one that remained unfilmed. Without Ian Fleming's story, characters and dialogue to guide them this time, the writers have had to do everything from scratch on their own and it shows. This is a movie with no structure, no characters and, therefore, not much point. It even has an infuriating open-ending for the next movie. It's not a self-contained Bond film. If the producers were going to make "Casino Royale," "Quantum of Solace" and the next Bond film a trilogy of Bond's struggle to overthrow the Quantum organisation, then they should have followed George Lucas's structure with the original "Star Wars" trilogy, treating the three films like a three-act structure. This one should have been "The Empire Strikes Back" or the second act, where everything goes wrong for Bond and the Quantum organisation comes close to victory and leaves Bond nearly dead at the end of it. Instead, Bond swiftly beats every villain he's up against and his life is never really in any danger (he can jump out of a plane, freefall at hundreds of miles an hour, open his chute at the last minute and land without a scratch! Yeah, right). It becomes too easy for him after a while which makes for boring viewing. The producers need to create a villain who has Bond's number psychologically, someone that Bond is frightened of. That would be interesting.

I was hugely disappointed with this movie. It was a missed opportunity to build on the excellent "Casino Royale." They will need something spectacular to rescue Daniel Craig's run as Bond in the next movie. Get your thinking caps on guys!
Good Bond installment...with some flaws
imdbbl20 December 2008
Bond films are definitely taking a new direction...and I'm liking it. But not everyone is reacting well to this new era, probably because many are used to the old Bond's mannerisms and attitudes. I personally think its great to see a more modern and contemporary Bond and also don't forget, both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace take place before all the other movies so Bond's character is still being shaped.The good news is that Bond is still Bond and despite all the criticism no one has ever played this character so well as Daniel Craig.He actually did pretty much all the stunts himself which I think its amazing.It shows how much he cares and how much he wants to please the fans.The plot is probably the biggest flaw here...there's a "big conspiracy" as usual but its overcomplicated and not that interesting.I was expecting something a little better taking into consideration that Quantum of Solace was written by Paul Haggis, the writer of so many Oscar winning pictures in the last years.The film is very entertaining though which is its main purpose. The bond girl is played this time by the lovely Olga Kurylenko and I must say I wasn't certain she was bond Girl material but she proved me wrong and it was interesting to see her character's seek for revenge.The villain, played by Mathieu Amalric, doesn't quite live up to the expectations though ...and was rather disappointing, after all this is a Bond film and usually the villains are almost as iconic as Bond itself. Judie Dench returns as "M" and thank god,there's no sign of "Q". Bottom line: Quantum of Solace is a solid movie and a nice addiction to the Bond series and Daniel Craig is the greatest James Bond to this date.Sorry Sean!

8/10
2/10
The Musings of a Betrayed Bond Fan
Leaper407727 November 2008
After completely revitalizing the world of 007 with the brilliant Casino Royale, producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have shattered the hopes of many a devoted fan by producing the worst Bond film since (shudder) Moonraker. Quantum of Solace meanders from country to country and set piece to set piece without a coherent or remotely compelling story to tell (it has something to do with battles over the water supply and oil resources in Bolivia, although I'm really not sure) or any interesting or quirky characters to introduce (Mathieu Amalric is particularly cartoonish and dull as the super-villain de jour). The emphasis is on the action scenes, and Marc Forster directs them with such blatant disregard for timing, style, originality and even the slightest bit of visual clarity (those hateful hand-held cameras strike again!) that they are practically impossible to watch. When a Bond film can't even be counted on to provide a few thrilling moments that won't bring about motion sickness, something in the universe is truly amiss. Quantum of Solace also seems determined to rob the Bond series of every last trace of humor, frivolity and elegance, viewing Bond as nothing more than a trigger-happy, perpetually morose thug who ends up directly or indirectly killing just about everyone he comes in contact with. It's admirable for this venerable franchise to want to explore more emotionally complex terrain, but when 007 doesn't have at least a few humorous lines, the slightest bit of sexual chemistry with his Bond girl (the spunky Olga Kurylenko) and maybe one or two fun gadgets to play with, it just doesn't feel like Bond anymore. And whatever the faults of the old Bond formula, it rarely produced movies as tedious, confusing and visually jarring as Quantum of Solace. Talented performers like Daniel Craig, Jeffrey Wright and Judi Dench deserve far better material than this, and hopefully they'll receive it the next time around.
8/10
007 Hardboiled: Another Way to Die
lostinaction10 November 2008
Another Way to Die is the Title of the Opening Music Theme of this Movie. No the Song isn't great but the Title of this song has more to do with the movie as in other James Bond Movies. Daniel Craig is back as 007 and he is more hardboiled as in Casino Royale. No wonder he lost his Love and now he is dead. Not physically dead but dead inside. He has a new Target to destroy and kill all the members of a mysterious Organisation. Through this Movie we will find out more about these people and what they are planning.

I have to say I watched it twice. The first Time I saw I thought: Yes it's a simple Vengeance Story with some great Action Scenes. I was wrong. 007 is more adult now, he isn't the spy with an arsenal of funny gadgets and only on a Mission, he is man full of emotions and he is not Superhero anymore who knows everything. He is a realistic character more about the novels of Ian Fleming as of the Roger Moore Bond in Moonraker or Pierce Brosnan in Die another Day.

All what you see in QoS is State of Art and Technique. Some of these have been already used in the Bourne Action Thrillers. Like it or not the fast editing of some action scenes. The first time I watched QoS it surprised me badly and I was a bit annoyed. Not the second time. The scenes are looking realistic, Bond sweats and blooded and it's more like an adrenalin rush. The scenery I still like best is the one at the Bregenz Sea Opera in Austria. It's Creative Thriller/Action scenery next to Puccini's great Opera Tosca. Here you can see the talent and the potential of the Director Marc Foster.

The acting is much better as I thought the first Time. It's good to see that next to terrific Daniel Craig the bond girls aren't just Bimbas without brain anymore. Both actresses (Olga Kurlyenko as Camille and Gemma Aerton as Fields) are showing fine performances. Camille is not only beautiful no she has a past. Similar to Bond she has an unfinished business to do. The scenes with Fields are fun to watch and will satisfy James Bond Fans. Next to these Beauties we see the return of Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) from Casino Royale. The scenes between Mathis and 007 are really Bond-Buddy like and this is James Bond pure. Of course M and Felix Leiter have a Comeback so. Sorry but you'll not find Miss Moneypenny and the Master of Gadgets Q.

As stated before Another Way to Die wouldn't be a bad Title instead of Quantum of Solace. James Bond is a much more complex character and next to his character development there is still a thrilling plot. Dominic Greene and his strange looking Assistant Elvis are the Villains with a plan who is more believable than just not destroying the World for a lot of money. I'm still not quite sure who this guy Elvis should represent because as Bodyguard he seems to be useless. But there are some more enemies waiting for Bond: a former Bolivian Dictator and a stupid Agent from another Agency.

It's the shortest Bond Movie ever but the plot isn't easy as usual. In a way this Movie needs full concentration on the screen what is going on there. Before watching it you need to know who Vesper was, maybe you should watch Casino Royale before. Daniel Craig is a dark gritty James Bond. There is humor in this one but not as much as I wished Not to forget a lot of references to old James Bond Movies. Real 007 Fans will not have troubles to find them all.

IMO QoS wasn't as good as Casino Royale but it was a good sequel to it and pretty fine adrenalin entertainment. For those who complain about Quantum of Solace remember the last line of a James Bond 007 Movie is: JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.
9/10
Moderate Mess-Up
tml_pohlak_135 May 2009
Daniel Craig is one of, if not the, best Bonds ever. He was positively brilliant in "Casino Royale", and he does an equally good job here. "Quantum of Solace" takes its name from the short story in "For Your Eyes Only", but it really has no plot similarities whatsoever (trust me, I read the story just to see if there's any similarities- there are literally none). The movie is a direct sequel to "Casino Royale", the only one so far in the Bond franchise. Now, the idea was great, but it was ruined by two things.

First of all, the direction. Where the hell did they pull Marc Forster from? The guy's direction was awful. During many of the chase scenes, I couldn't tell the difference between Bond and the villain. The style was really awful and confusing at times. I much preferred Martin Campbell's direction.

The Bond girl… oh, dear! Since the Bond girl has often been depicted as the "damsel in distress" (which, in my humble opinion, works), they decided to go all "politically correct" in this film. Camille is one of those "tough girls", who is on a mission to kill the man who… well let's leave that bit out. Let me point out something to the people behind QOS: you don't need to make the Bond girl tough for her to be good! Look at Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale"! Next thing we know, Bond will go steady with the Bond girl, just for it to be politically correct! *gags*

Those are really the only two faults of the movie. The Bond villain lacks the usual deformity, which I liked! I mean, the villains are the kind of people who do well in society and all, and this really helps convey the sinister "every-dayness" of the villain.

So overall, "Quantum of Solace" has its faults, but it's enjoyable, especially once you put its two major faults aside.
2/10
Lackluster
andy_berry3220 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We need another Sean Connery, Roger Moore, or even Tim Dalton.

PLEASE!! Here, we have a not so hot blonde guy pouting and looking like a builder who's stolen a suit. This film could be any old thriller. Absolute desecration of the Bond franchise. This 'Bond in a new direction' bollox really annoys me. There isn't even a gun barrel at the start. Why have they removed the things we love? Lunatics. They have removed any ounce of humour and we are left with DULL. Who is this character? Sidney Bond? Dennis Bond? It's certainly not James Bond. And don't give me that 'it's more like the Bond in the books' crap. Those are books. These are films. Escapism. Daniel should have been tackling idiotic giants like 'Jaws' or swinging on vines imitating Tarzan. These are the things that Bond is all about. Silly, good time fun.

This is as much fun as watching paint dry.
8/10
No Moore, thanks
Kee_Nim_Mak_Mak6 November 2008
There are two kinds of people in the world - those who like Roger Moore's campy, arch, eyebrow-raising moonrakin' Bond, and those who don't.

Within the first twenty minutes of Quantam of Solace it becomes pretty apparent that the first group aren't going to be leaving happy. A furious car chase, edited so brutally you feel the grinding and crumpling of steel with each impact, an interrogation scene, a shoot-out, a chase on foot culminating in the money-shot of Bond and quarry tumbling through a glass roof.

And no, Bond's eyebrows stay exactly where they are throughout.

Like Casino Royale before it, you get the impression Quantam's creators have had a long Bourne session and decided to finally drag Bond kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Gone are the gadgets, gone is the Moneypenny banter - in its place are messy fight scenes, blood, and torture. Craig's Bond has become darker than the amateur thug he played in Royale, murdering leads in every direction and dismissing his emotional problems with a combination of booze and witty retorts...

And this is where the film's flaws lie. Perhaps after hearing the criticism levelled at Royale for not being 'Bond-enough,' Quantam's creators have attempted to work in a few of Bond's old habits - the one-liners, the ditzy females, the creepy villain, and in doing so at times the film falls between two proverbial stools.

Craig is clearly uncomfortable with the corny asides, whilst Mathieu Almaric's sleazy villain Dominic Greene is at times unsure which side of the fence he's on - occasionally his rasping and his casual psychotic outbursts come across as ridiculous in a world we're supposed to take seriously, yet in keeping with the 'realism' he comes across as too bland for a pre-retcon Bond villain. Olga Kurylenko's Camille is as two-dimensional as most Bond girls, but she's a veritable masterpiece compared to the criminally underused (and lovely) Gemma Arterton, playing Easily Seduced Floozy. Yeah, he's Bond, we get it, but come on, a chat-up line about stationary? At least he had to work for a bit on her counterpart in Royale.

Yet all this is nitpicking, and nitpicking in an otherwise fine mop of blond hair. There is enough satisfying action and plot to keep one entertained for its surprisingly short length, and fans of Casino Royale will find more of the same - if a little watered down - here. It's just a shame the creators aren't as willing to completely embrace this new formula. Next time no Moore, please.
8/10
Wonderful, hungry-erasing thriller.
theskulI4230 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So there I sit. 7PM, Mountain Standard Time. My Broncos have just won a critical game, upsetting a favored New York team. I have done nothing of use, including a lack of consuming food for sustenance. Suddenly, my father BURSTS in my door, and announces that he's come to pick me up, and we're going to see the new Bond film, Quantum of Solace. It's the only time my stepmother has to go, and it's a 7:10 show, at a theater a dozen minutes away. As the lights dim and the trailers for Star Trek and Watchmen roll, it hits me: I never actually ate anything, and the troublesome car alarm in my head that triggers a migraine when I don't eat for long periods of time is enacted. Then, the film begins.

My hunger was never an issue again.

While it may not be better than Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is a fairly glorious expansion on its predecessor, beginning with a thrilling car chase that becomes an even more thrilling foot chase, and from there, almost never lets up or steps wrong. The action scenes are spectacular, the scenes of intrigue clever and satisfying, and the scenes of tenderness as curt as Bond, especially now that they've given him emotional depth, for arguably the first time in the entire series. That the death of Vesper Lynn in the previous film becomes such a plot point in this one is notable when you think back to, for example, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond's girl is killed as they're getting MARRIED, and is almost instantly forgotten. Here, Bond carries this burden with him throughout the film, and pleasantly, instead of making his revenge the focus of the film (something the filmmakers very easily could have done), it becomes more a sort of overarching theme of individual morality, and it was damn refreshing.

In the acting department, Daniel Craig does nothing to spoil his argument for being the best Bond of all. He may not have Connery's charisma, but everything else you could possibly want out of the character, Craig delivers, and I hope he remains Bond for the foreseeable future. The Bond girls, as would be expected dealing with someone as romantically grieving as Bond is, get the short shrift. His relation with Bolivian agent Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is almost wholly platonic, and his bedding of Fields (Gemma Arterton) is far more practical than hormonal. In fact, the woman he gets the closest to is the delightful M (Judi Dench), who has the audience's best interests at heart when dealing with Bond-related issues. On the other side, the producers got a hell of a find in Mathieu Amalric. His demonically wimpy disposition was perfectly balanced in a way I've never seen outside of perhaps Michael Emerson on Lost. Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and David Harbour provide ample characterization on underdeveloped characters, and really, there are no holes.

Marc Foster (Stranger Than Fiction) was perhaps an unusual choice for a brutal action film, but he does an excellent job presenting everything: each new locale gets an exotic, awe-spiring establishing shots, and the editing and camera-work had a delightful clarity to it, solving the main drawback of last year's The Bourne Ultimatum, the epileptic camera obscuring what could otherwise have been quality choreography. Quantum lets you see every impact, so you can really appreciate the skill involved, and even the CGI is integrated flawlessly.

The film isn't perfect. A small handful of scenes go on for too long, and Ms. Fields' appearance seems undersold in comparison to the rest of the film. Also, the grand finale in General Medrano's compound thing is excellent up to a point, but by the time he's having trouble incapacitating one wimpy executive and walking through fire and blowing out walls, suspension of disbelief is being spread a little thin. Luckily, by that point, the film had earned so much good will, it was easy to take it on the chin and move on, especially when the final denouement was so deliciously ruthless. Quantum of Solace is thrilling, wondrously-paced, and almost complete nonstop enjoyment. To be frank, I think the best compliment I can pay it is that it made me forget I hadn't eaten in 24 hours; It extinguished the fires brewing in my head, and that's a hell of an achievement.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta get my ass something to eat.

{Grade: 8.75/10 (A-/B+) / #2 (of 84) of 2008}
8/10
Very interesting, a very different Bond movie
barrys8226 November 2008
Quantum of Solace the latest film of the already successful James Bond franchise is a non-stop action movie with really good adventure, suspense and mystery. It has really interesting twists. This new Bond movie is quite different from all the previous ones because in this one the 007 leaves all the glamour and his famous gadgets just to seek revenge. The film has various locations all around the world and it shows some beautiful landscapes. The cast is good, everyone with good performances. Daniel Craig breaks with all we already knew about James Bond, Olga Kurylenko the new "Bond girl" was decent enough for her role. Mathieu Amalric made a very convincing villain and Judy Dench was great as always In conclusion, this wasn't the typical Bond movie but its worth to watch.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
the worst film of the Bond with Craig
miguelneto-7493631 May 2016
If the Casino Royale is one of the best James Bond film , Quantum of Solace is one of the weakest , Daniel Craig back into the skin of Bond , and more time is excellent, it is the most realistic James Bond of all , is the most catches , which is more difficult , I really liked this new Bond , the script is competent , most have as many problems as the previous one, the dialogues are not as good as Casino Royale , the soundtrack is good , the new romantic pair Bond is not as interesting as the Eva Green , action moments does not excite , has a lot of humor in this film , and the direction is not as good , Quantum of Solace is the worst film in the franchise with Daniel Craig , more does not reach be bad. Note 6.4
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as Casino Royale, but a great Bond movie
david-mcintee1 November 2008
It's really the second half of the movie that started with the second half of Casino Royale (which itself feels like two movies in a double bill). It also did kind of give me a Tomorrow Never Dies vibe. Only, you know, better.

I loved it. Mind you, I watched Casino Royale (best Bond movie ever) last night, and so it did feel like a solid entity to me. I went in kind of worrying - I'd heard all sorts of spoilers in the other thread that suggested it would just be filler, but came out feeling that I'd seen a great Bond movie. Not the best Bond movie, and I'll get to the negative points shortly, but a worthy Bond fix all the same.

Casino Royale so perfectly rebooted the series, and was so well done in and of itself, that really, nothing was going to live up to the hype that the previous movie had generated. At least not without Martin Campbell back as director.

Craig is perfect as Bond; excellent villain; great score; Olga Kurylenko was good; Mathis and Felix were great - I really felt we were getting to explore more of how these people came to be Bond's friends; the relationship with M; the action scenes, great chases and fights. The usual. Also, it was nice to see a real globe-hopping Bond again, with the plot lines unfolding in exotic locations.

Some posters had said on the other thread that it doesn't really go into Bond's character development, post-Vesper. They must have seen a different movie, or at least not in effect watched it with CR as a double-bill (and my advice is definitely to rewatch CR immediately beforehand. Standalone, this would rate a 7.5 or so, like TND, but together they're greater than the sum of their parts).

The main plot is actually pretty simplistic and very Moore-era - or indeed TND again, as it's all about trying to grab commodity rights - but the elements of what's driving Bond (revenge for Vesper? Or for M?) are much more subtly handled and brilliantly played. Yes, this does conclude things for the Vesper/betrayal thing, outright and explicitly, but just not sledgehammered in dialogue. It ends nicely, with the necklace, and with enough closure for Greene and company, but with the knowledge that Quantum, like SPECTRE in the old days, can come back anytime, but without making it actually necessary or dictating how they do.

There always used to be a running gag that Bond movies were always 20 minutes too long. Well, this time they left out the extra 20, and you don't feel short changed. It's just the right length. There are all manner of great little touches too, like the little discs going across in the titles presaging the gunbarrel (like how the white disc offers up Broccoli and Saltzman's names in OHMSS). It's a proper gunbarrel this time, though.

The song still sucks, and doesn't really play any better over the titles. I'm unsure about the titles - I don't like the font used, which reminds me of late 1970s literary SF covers. Also, I'd really have put the gunbarrel at the start, not for form's sake but because a) it would have worked perfectly well at the beginning - just drop the long sweep in over the lake and there's a perfect shot of the Aston coming right at you that would have blended perfectly! and b) The end credits would have come up over the necklace in the snow - very poignant and reminiscent, thematically, of the last shot of OHMSS For the first half-hour, the action scenes are not so well handled by Forster, and made me wonder if he was the right guy to helm it - aside from the overly-brief cuts detracting from the excellent choreography, there are some weird choices of framing. E.g.when Bond yanks the starter of a speedboat engine, we get a quick close-up not of his hand or the engine starting, but the knee of his trousers. WTF? However, it gets better after that! Overall, though, I thought it was a thrilling, pulse-pounding ride with great performances (except for Gemma Arterton), lovely character moments, subtle wit (so subtle a lot of critics don't seem to have registered it!), and a believable journey for Bond's coming to terms with Vesper's death and what his lifestyle means.

I'm in two minds about the location-captions.
7/10
QOS - Middle of the Trilogy Syndrome
bankofmarquis17 October 2015
This movie suffers from "middle movie of a trilogy" syndrome. QOS is actually a pretty good James Bond film but it tries really hard to build on themes/story lines that were established in CASINO ROYALE and leaves MANY story lines open that will not get tied up until SKYFALL (or further down the road), so, ultimately NOT a satisfying experience.

True, Daniel Craig comes into his own as Bond in this movie. His piercing blue eyes and dangerous look fit perfectly with this character, while Dame Judy Dench really gives him someone strong to play against - which is good - because the villain in this movie, Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene, is one of the more forgettable villains in recent Bond history. He is a lower level middle man for something bigger and he wasn't really up to the challenge. The same could be said for Olga Kurylenko's femme fatale - Camille. She wasn't much of a presence (if you want to see her as a presence, check her out in the Tom Cruise vehicle, OBLIVION, she is quite good in that).

Special notice should be made of returning players Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Italian movie legend Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis, I would have loved to have had both of them in this movie much, much more.

All in all, an entertaining movie - it is a BOND film after all - just not up to the usual standards.

7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
8/10
The start of a connected Bond storyline.
Benjamin-M-Weilert19 May 2019
Ever since the turn of the millennium, many film franchises have taken to starting over; reinventing themselves for this modern era. From superheroes like Batman and Superman to age old classics such as "Rocky" and "Rambo", these franchises have been going back to the drawing board in order to pull in ticket sales. The James Bond franchise is no different. In 2006, the ranks of Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan gained Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" is a rather rare Bond film as it actually has a connection to its predecessor, "Casino Royale". It also has all of the elements of the franchise. There are the spectacular opening credits, Bond girls, fancy car chases and gun fights. Somewhat missing from the mix is the legendary set of gadgets, which was also missing from "Casino Royale". Instead, an impressive graphical user interface on all the computers and cell phones (think "Minority Report") replaces the somewhat obscure and specific gadgets. The film feels like an action film from the Bourne series, with vehicle chases and somewhat jittery camerawork that becomes hard to watch at times. "Quantum of Solace" starts with a car chase and uses any available vehicle to drive the action, including a motorcycle, boats, and airplanes. However, the action kind of lulls in the second third which drags the movie towards the final, fiery fight. Daniel Craig has been hailed as the Bond closest to the literary image created by Ian Flemming. Craig takes the character and gives Bond depth and complexity to match his martini. The villain is real enough, but feels like a bitter Al Gore who is using global warming to scare people into giving him control over everything. With a set of unknown actors (with the exception of Judi Dench, and now Daniel Craig), the Bond franchise is starting over from the string of Pierce Brosnan films which tended towards celebrity and over-the-top silliness. Fueled by action sequences and lightened by British wit and charm, this film should be enjoyable to both those wanting to become familiar with the Bond films and those diehard fans. It's definitely worth the price of admission.
9/10
Pretty Good
pauld2b16 November 2008
Obviously a setup for the third "part" and I enjoy Daniel Craig's Bond the most since Connery. I do hope he stays around for a few more Bonds and gets to flesh out the new Bond who, in case you forgot, was just in his developmental stages and as such is doing well. "M" is gaining trust in Bond and their relationship is burgeoning quite nicely. He described the Martini without the more famous line - and I DO miss the introductory line - BUT - time marches on and I have read ALL of the books and seen and own all of the movies seeing all of them when they were released in theaters. Not as good as Casino - but - as a connective piece I thought it was just fine and worth seeing. I wish they would bring back the first director as my only criticism.There was an interesting homage to an earlier Bond flick that was quite neat.You'll certainly know it if you are a veteran Bond fan.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Well done Action Movie, bad Bond Movie
bwdude30 November 2008
Before Casino Royal I was as skeptical as many, if Daniel Craig could be James Bond.

And like many again, after seeing it I had to admit that D.C. was one helluva Bond and not bad at all.

Casino Royal itself was also very good in my book and so I was really looking forward to the latest installment.

And while it's not a bad movie per se, it sure lacks the good old James Bond feeling. It's more "just" an Action movie that really lives up to it's genre. I personally don't like the fast, close cuts but they seem to be en vogue nowadays so it might be just me. I also think it had almost too many action scenes and too little story.

If you gave the main characters different names ... almost nothing would remember you of a Bond flick. And that's a bit sad really, I want the good old Bond-qualities back and still have Daniel Craig.
8/10
The 2nd Best Bond Movie of all time!!!
KalKenobi8329 September 2014
Watched Quantum Of Solace Starring Daniel Craig(Defiance) as James Bond/007, Dame Judi Dench(A Room With A View) as M Bond's Boss , Jeffrey Wright(The Invasion) as Felix Leiter a CIA Operative working closely with MI6 ,Gemma Arterton(RockNRolla) as Strawberry Fields, Giancarlo Giannini(Mimic) as Rene Mathis, The Lovely Olga Kurylenko(Hit Man) as Camille Montes my favorite Bond Girl. Joaquin Cosio(Killing Cabos) as General Medrano, Greene's right Hand man and Mathieu Amalric(Munich) as Dominic Greene The films Main Villain.What I like about the film is Bond is soldier and the events have mad mistrusting and brutal but its because he lost what he wanted in life his true love also his bond is more complex the film was great and left you wanting to know what is Greenes endgame also my second favorite bond film to date amazing Production design from Dennis Gassner(Waterworld), Costumes Design by Louise Frogley(Syriana) Cinematography by Roberto Schaefer(The Kite Runner) and Direction from Marc Forster(Machine Gun Preacher) The 2nd Best Bond Movie of all time 8/10
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum is an enjoyable piece of work, but the 'masters' behind the picture disappoint.
berryj62 November 2008
There have been some pretty stupid James Bond films. A wining media mogul has tried to start WWIII so he can get 24-hour news coverage exclusivity in China, and someone has tried to make a deadly satellite out of diamonds. But beyond the stupidity of diamonds and boring villains, there is a presence, a style in every Bond films that makes a statement and provides an explanation for why Bond has lasted 22(+) films. Then, after 20 films, Casino Royale was released. Arguably one of the best bond films ever, its gritty violence and stylish brutality seemed to fuse the old, witty James Bond, with a new, revamped '00' together perfectly. This showed in the box-office results too, becoming the highest grossing bond film so for, meaning there was bound to be a sequel.

So, where to go for the sequel? Nearly all the books had already been transferred on to celluloid in varying amounts of success, and a remake would seem like the bond franchise had finally ran out of steam. So EON hire Paul Haggis, writer of Best Picture winner Crash, along with 'master' director Marc Forster, responsible for Monsters Ball and Stranger than Fiction. However, does it not seem a strange choice to assemble a cast of 'character' and 'drama' directors, producers and storytellers to present a James Bond film that should be laden with style, wit, irony and action? It is a strange choice, and it has back-fired on the new Bond instalment harshly. Forster seems lost amongst the need for big explosions and pirouetting cars, his mind only having the capacity to command the cold Daniel Craig, who performs at a level Sean Connery would admire, if not feel threatened by. The story by Haggis jumps around incoherently more than James Bonds need to travel to every exotic location. The organisation of Quantum appears, then disappears, characters twiddle their thumbs and sit in the background uneasy, all because again of the action sequences. The film's narrative and direction is halted by Craig slamming into walls and punching foreigners, which fail to fuse and cohere to any aspect of the film. Perhaps these action sequences are a result of another peculiar cast member, Second Unit Director Dan Bradley, who worked on the previous two Jason Bourne instalments. Would he bring over the shaky-camera shots that Paul Greengrass (director of the two previous Bourne movies) has made a signature style that many action movies have recently imitated? Unfortunately, yes, he did, and it may work for the reclusive Bourne, but it doesn't work for Bond. In the opening action sequences (there are two really), the camera feels like it has been operated by a drunken man running away from lion, and the $200 million worth of scenes are almost wasted by frenetic, out-of-control and unnecessarily fast-cutting editing and barely watchable camera shaking.

It's a shame really, but it is strange that at the end of the film you feel pleasantly happy and satisfied with Quantum of Solace. For the camera direction may be shaky, but it is immensely engaging. The Jason Bourne series was better than Quantum of Solace, so Bourne added to Bond is in some way a good connection. The plot may be a jungle of incoherence and insoluble plot threads, but it is a level up and provides a solid base for the coming films. The villain may have a dim character reminiscent of a mouse, but Daniel Craig puts on a 'true' Bond performance. Flemming actually described bond as 'cold, ironic and brutal,' and Craig is exactly that, whereas Pierce Brosnon was a slimy, grimy character whose dialogue consisted of innuendo and nothing else. Quantum of Solace may feel like a set up for a new series of Bond films, but it is a passable set up for its collection of Bourne-like action sequences and unsentimental, vicious conviction. However, may the producers heed a warning from Bond's latest outing. They have stripped Bond bare of his gadgets, one-liners, seeming invincibility and shaken-not-stirred style; but they can't forget it, and layering all that carefully and delicately back on may prove a challenge.
3/10
Makes 'Casino Royale' Good
ChrisTreborn8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I became a fan of the new rebooted franchise of Bond after watching the original Casino Royale in 2006(I even watched it in the first-day first-show). I think that movie really made Bond character a more human, compared to all that previous visual gimmicks garbage eggs. I liked the actor Daniel Craig's interpretation of 'Strong and Silent' brutal Bond which the original author Ian Fleming envisioned. When I heard EON production planning for a sequel I was greatly excited.

Fast forward, present day NOV-7-2008, all that excitement I gained after watching, surfing, downloading the news, trailers, articles of BOND 22 from preproduction to its early release, ended when I witness the sequel in the theatre.

Quantum of Solace. (***SPOLIERS***)

After the murder of Vesper, Bond became more aggressive to trace out the true killers responsible for her death. This time he happens to know that it is Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), and to get him Bond has to go threw a wide cycle of events with the help of a girl named Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Picking up almost an hour after the ending events of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is the first true Bond sequel happened in the James Bond franchise. Based on an original idea by producer Michael G. Wilson, director Marc Forster tells the continuing story of the world's greatest secret agent.

But the problem for this rebooted sequel is, first of all it doesn't feel like a thrilling movie or even a sequel because of the lame storyline and lagging plot expansion. The art film director Marc Forster doesn't even come close to the average Martin Campbell with his lame narration techniques. Originally intended to show Bond as realistic as possible, this director portrayed the action scene with unrealistic camera movements for CGI fight doubles and even copied the outstanding free-running sequence from Casino Royale. Or was it because of the bad script written by screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis. Anyway it all sucked. No wonder why major directors like Roger Michell, Tony Scott, Alex Proyas, Jonathan Mostow declined to shoot this sequel with that draft. Even the opening credits looked pathetic.

Daniel Craig did his best as Bond even with a bad script; he showed he can hold on. His interpretation of Bond as a antihero more than a hero was prefect in this movie. Even without a good plot or great dialogues or a threatening villain, Daniel Craig proved he can play Bond as bold as ever. On the other hand antagonist Mathieu Amalric downplayed the character and appeared less alarming to Bond.

Second heroine Gemma Arterton was wasted all way long, so was Jeffrey white. Anything good was from Olga Kurylenko who captured the true essence of the Bond Girl. I became a fan after watching her outing with AGENT 47 in Hit-man, in this movie pairing with AGENT OO7 showed a new side of this talented actress. Plus, the stunt coordinator Gary Powell of Casino Royale and Dan Bradley the second unit director of Bourne film series, really deserves credits for bringing Bond realistic as possible. They showed their talents in creating the breath taking action sequences, especially the first car chasing and the rooftop fighting.

And also the soul given by David Arnold finally made an impact in this movie. I hated all his previous scores in bond films including Casino Royale, but this score heard in the movie really gave a true identity to the new serious Bond. Truly this is the Best Bond Score ever! All in all this is a movie which should have made better, but completely went wrong by hiring terrible director. EON producers better give importance to the preproduction, and please give Daniel a new long haircut in the coming sequel. I'm giving this movie 3 out of 10! (And it's only because of the Bond girl Olga Kurylenko and the eye candy M16 graphical user interface shown in the movie).

Quantum of Solace = Avoidable (Better try to watch its divx aXXo release and save your precious time and money).
6/10
High expectations... sadly not met
juten_tach7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was pretty excited when I ordered the tickets for QoS's prime time opening screening at Berlin's OV-theater "Cinestar im Sony Center", as I enjoyed the prequel "Casino Royale" despite the constantly (r)evolving plot very much.

But being pretty "unhappy" about the sheer amount of ads and trailers before the movie finally started, which of course is not the movie's fault but the theater's, I was even more appalled by the amazingly bad soundtrack of the opening credits.

When the first scene finally started it became obvious, that being seated middle/middle was the wrong choice. Despite having the a pretty good 2x45 degree view upon the big screen, I simply couldn't grasp what was happening on the screen. The cuts between what felt like a dozen different angles within just frames were almost inducing a synaptic shock. Being in a total clear state of mind I didn't even dare to think how someone could watch this frame-massacre in any altered state.

This style continued throughout all action sequences which made it really hard to cope with what actually happened and how the outcome would affect the plot. Ah yes, the plot. With "Casino Royale" in mind QoS's storyline seemed to be pretty thin. The twists were either pretty obvious or not conclusive at all. On top of that the movie was over pretty abruptly which was strange itself, but what really astonished me was the weak runtime of not even 1h 40mins.

6/10 just because I liked the Aston Martin DBS - without it would have been a mere 5!
10/10
Amazin the best Bond movie ever!
david-wade-314 November 2008
This was awesome, what a movie I love it. I'm a real James Bond fan whom has watched nearly all of the 22 movies. This is my mind is the best to date.

I think Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond, for anyone who says otherwise is living in the past. I say this as I feel that the Bond movies are almost a social refection, pending on what era they were shot it. This is a true 21st century Bond, he is mean; smart and ready to kick butt.

The movie is shot in a gritty action style, flipping from action scene back and forth. I liked this method, it really kept you thinking on what was happening.

When leaving the theater a guy in his late fifties said, 'so how did you rate it out of ten?' - I just replied I loved it, still taking all that action in. His reply was '7.1/2' kinda thought the flipping from action to action with blurring let it down.

I just can't wait for a DVD release.....my only let down was knowing this would be the last Bond movie from Ian Flemming's pen.

Questions in my mind....

Will we get more Bond movies? we have talented writers, I'm guessing it depends on the Flemming family; and how much they want for the rights.

How about remaking some of those old cheesy movies?? put in this modern day format would be awesome. I mean I know Dr. No cost the least to make, and grossed the most at box office. But modern film camera, special effect would be the best.

I know this review won't please many James Bond purists, but I'm a movie lover and speak what I think!
5/10
A Waste of Talent
itamarscomix20 May 2013
The big problem with Quantum of Solace isn't that it's a horrible movie - it's better than most Pierce Brosnan headed Bond films, and director Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Stranger Than Fiction) clearly tried to inject some of his skill and sensitivity into the shots and the pacing. Perhaps, had he been given a stronger screenplay to work with, he might have made it memorable; as it is, Forster's talent is wasted on one of the most forgettable, unnecessary Bond films ever made. Even the silliest of Roger Moore adventures had more to make them stand out and make an impression than this one.

It's possible that this feeling derives partly from the fact that Quantum of Solace was intended as a direct sequel to Casino Royale, more so than any Bond movie made before; but more than a sequel, it feels like an appendix to that other film. Casino Royale made a mark partly thanks to the novelty of Daniel Craig as Bond and of the darker, more realistic atmosphere, which Quantum of Solace follows, but it also had a simple yet intriguing story, a memorable villain and an interesting romantic interest - all of which Quantum of Solace lacks. Mathieu Amalric makes for one of the most nondescript of all Bond villains, and his fiendish plot is far less fiendish and far more complicated than it needs to be to get us interested; the Bond girls (Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton) barely have anything to tell them apart.

Instead of a coherent story, gripping action scenes or interesting characters, Quantum of Solace attempts to make a larger point about the nature of revenge, but the script isn't good enough to give that any weight. Craig does his best, as does Judi Dench, and their scenes together are by far the strongest parts of the film, but since we're talking about a Bond film after all, these little moments of human drama take up a very small part of the film, and the rest just doesn't work well enough. Quantum of Solace, despite having possibly the shortest runtime of all Bond movies, manages to be more confusing and complicated than most; and at the same time, feel like little more than an interlude between Casino Royale and Skyfall, making me feel that it could have just been inserted into an extended version of the first Craig film. Bond enthusiasts may want to check it out, but it's a film that the rest of us can easily live without.
7/10
Not a James Bond Movie
GoldenAgeFilms17 November 2008
After leaving the theater, I felt as if Quantum of Solace was missing something. Casino Royale had revived a falling Bond franchise and gave us a terrific Bond in Daniel Craig. After watching the trailers for Quantum, I thought that this movie would continue on the great success that is Bond.

However, this Bond movie felt like an ordinary action flick with no typical Bond features (which is unfortunate but acceptable) except Daniel Craigwho delivers another good performance. Olga Kurylenko was brutallypainful as the Bond girl and had no chemistry with Craig. The movie wasbasically 20 minutes of action, 5 of talking, and back into action. Fora director (Marc Forster-Finding Neverland) who is good at developinghis characters, he fell short in this outing.

The ending seems to just be another set up for a third movie which I totally do not agree with. I'm not going to spoil anything, but when you watch Quantum of Solace, you will feel as if your watching any ordinary action flick not James Bond.

6/10
6/10
Making a direct sequel was the biggest mistake.
shiftyeyeddog14 November 2008
Making a direct sequel to Casino Royale was the biggest mistake. Bond has never had them, and Ian Fleming didn't write it. Why mess with a proved formula? But they did, and the result is one of the more mediocre Bond films in recent years, and one that feels short and somewhat unsatisfying.

Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.

Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.

I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.
6/10
Not Terrible, But Not the Best
caseynicholson10 November 2015
This film's predecessor, "Casino Royale" is my all time favorite Bond movie, and I loved it from the first time I saw it in the theater. That being the case, I was pretty excited when "Quantum of Solace" came out a couple of years later, only to be very disappointed with the film. I'd only watched it one other time since then and had a similar reaction, but I decided to give it another shot in preparation for "Spectre".

That said, expectation has a lot to do with whether or not one enjoys a film. If you go into this movie expecting a "Casino Royale", you're going to be thoroughly disappointed. If you go into it not knowing much about it and expecting it to be a terrible movie (as I was this week given my recollection of my first two viewings), you may find yourself pleasantly surprised. This movie isn't terrible, and there are far worse films in the spy movie genre. But it does have its flaws.

For starters, "QoS" is a direct sequel of "Casnio Royale"--a rarity for the 007 franchise, as most movies in the series usually are standalone scripts. "QoS" departs from this, and sees Bond exacting revenge on the secret organization that was behind Vesper Lynd's demise in the earlier movie. That being the case, it does help things if you've seen "Casino Royale" lately--indeed, if you don't recall much about the latter, you won't be completely lost in "QoS", but you also won't be well served in understanding the gist of the story.

Still, no matter how recently you've seen "CR", "Quantum" is a film that doesn't tell its story as effectively as its prequel. The villains are thrown at you in a somewhat haphazard way, and unless you give the movie your full attention--no distractions or nothing else on your mind--then you may get halfway into things and find that you're a bit lost. I had to go check the film's wikipedia page halfway into the movie to make sure I understood what was happening with certain antagonists.

All in all, this is to say that this installment of 007 commits that most egregious of errors for filmmaking: It sacrifices good storytelling for dynamic action sequences. Yes, the action scenes are dramatic and compelling in this movie, but the film just doesn't tell its story well, and as such it is a far stretch from "CR".

Still, while this is a real problem for the film, its a problem that is not as overt as can be the case in some other action flicks. The plot is just good enough that it warrants a 6/10 stars--but again, that's only if you can keep up with what's going on.
8/10
Excellent Bond. Just pay attention...
filmbuff2028 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For the second time since Daniel Craig took the mantle of agent 007, Eon productions has once again delivered us a true spy thriller as opposed to overblown fantasy movies that were declining once again into self parody. There's nothing wrong with a good romp. In fact, Die Another Day, with all it's faults and awful innuendo, is still an entertaining Bond adventure. Now, however, Bond needs to be something more to survive in a world where franchises that have gone back to their source materials are enjoying more critical and financial success than ever before. Bond needed to go home, back to Fleming, creator of a hard drinking, womanising, cold blooded assassin who cares for no one, trusts no one and is devoted to Queen and country. A man who has more depth to him than 60% of the films would have you believe. A true, unashamed bastard.

The result is a gadget and catchphrase free Bond film that doesn't spoon feed it's audience with exposition. It manages to still feel like a Bond film without whacking you over the head with the Bond theme (although it is there) and having him introduce himself every few minutes to remind you. No, there is no Q. No, there is no Moneypenny. Are they necessary in this story? No. They would simply be there as a box to tick off which the writers and director have smartly side stepped this time around in favour of a lean thriller with a purpose.

After the events of Casino Royale, Bond is now on the tail of anyone connected to the mysterious and dangerous organisation behind the events of Casino Royale, which culminated in the death of Vesper, the woman he loved. In the process he stumbles upon Dominic Greene, a tycoon who plans to monopolise Bolivia's water supply and hold it to ransom, but first he must topple the current regime so that he can do business with the corrupt General who is positioned to inherit the land.

Along the way, Bond meets Camille, a Bolivian agent who also has a score to settle. Amidst the usual fist fights and explosions, there are some great character moments and resolutions to the loose ends of Casino Royale. Some complain about an over complex plot, but the trick is to pay attention and listen to the dialogue (a tall order for some it seems). Judi Dench plays a larger role here as M, fleshing out her relationship with Bond further. Her outward distrust and frustration with Bond belies her inner faith in him and we begin to notice that she may know him better than he knows himself.

The finale is a spectacle, of course. A hotel in the middle of the desert built on unstable hydrogen fuel cells is pure Bond. Ironically the same critics complaining about Quantum being too serious have a problem with this. The only thing that really and truly looks out of place here is Craig's bomber jacket.

The final scene caps off this two parter, with a cryptic yet poignant exchange of dialogue that moulds Bond into an island, finally. Craig's performance is pitch perfect here. He balances the hard exterior with the pain of loss inside without under or overplaying it. He is simply Bond. This scene is followed by what most believe to be one of the big no-nos of the film: The iconic gunbarell sequence. This could not be further from the truth. If Bond got his theme at the end of Casino Royale, he's certainly earned his gunbarrel here, signifying the completion of the character into someone more familiar. Let's hope he can still continue to develop in subsequent entries.

This is more in depth than anyone has any right to expect from a Bond film and hopefully this sets the bar. Maybe Craig will give us a few more 'spy thrillers' before the inevitable relapse into self parody begins again. For now though, a good script, pro acting, some blistering action and some fantastic Bond development round out a satisfying conclusion to Casino Royale. Comparisons with it's predecessor are inevitable, but despite being a sequel of sorts, Quantum continues the story while managing to be wildly different, as every new Bond entry should be. This film has had a mixed reception so far, but as a Bond fan (since age 5) I'm entirely satisfied and excited to see where they will take him.

(Please refer to the 'Help' section for information on how to vote on comments. Disagreement is inevitable with a film that has split this many people down the middle. That's not what you're voting on!)
6/10
Underrated but not great
fletchy-5735410 April 2021
This film is enjoyable but dont watch it after casino royale! There is no comparison. A true 6 out of 10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
not bad kind of bond movie...
sadotheboss7 December 2008
hmm.... not a bad sequel for casino royale but not fulfilling the expectations...Craig does action , action, action and nothing else... so he cant be called as a bond or actor.. better consider him to be a stunt master who does those stunts without any substitutes.. but... not considered to be an actor.. i don't how the people accept him to be a bond.. when you come out of the theatre you feel that you saw a kind of action movie and you feel that it is a bond movie... he don't even reminds you by telling " the name is bond, James bond ".. i request the creators to stop Daniel Craig as bond... i would recommend christane bale... then, apart from Craig the movie was good... and amalric did a good job.. but again Craig fighting with him is like a wresler fighting with a ordinary man... i would finish by saying that its a "not bad "kind of sequel...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Hey, its OK!
mikec3200120 November 2008
Some observations (as Gareth Keenan would say)...

Well, this is a decent movie but I'm not at all sure how it is "by some margin" (according to Barbara Brocolli) the most expensive 007 movie made. I mean, for one thing it's a good 45 minutes shorter than the average Bond movie and for another, no major set-piece apart from the last one is actually *that* major. Oh sure, its all guns guns guns and lots of rapid cuts of Daniel Craig rolling around amid showers of broken glass but I'm still wondering...where da money go Boss? But then, this is Casino Royale part 2, and as such works quite well even if it feels more of an appendage or extra limb to Martin Campbell's superior entry. But it's still a bloody good action film. (over) edited to within an inch of it's life and replete with stunning stunts and thrills. Craig and Dench are almost a double act in this one - she seems to pop up all over the place as though second guessing his every move. Which is an amazingly generous use of her time considering he's just this new agent, just starting out, apparently...

And yes, the plot is slight and feels under-developed but its not that different from any other Bond film. Basically, any film company that continues to employ two hacks like Neil Purves and Robert Wade (the literary genuius's behind "The World Is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day") gets what it pays for. Which is a damn shame because things started to look up a bit in 2006...

But see this for film what it is - a lean and hungry return for the best Bond actor since Connery in a rather dull storyline. By no means the ball-drop the critics would have you believe but not the greatest either. A decent modern Bond film that keeps up in the air the ball "Casino Royale" first kicked but doesn't exactly have any juggling tricks.
6/10
I'll do my best.
snottyscotty15022 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the lines Bond says to M after being told not to kill everyone. Also a line which sums this film up very well.

It starts off with a cut scene of an ocean and a bridge which has a resemblance of Italy (where the last film finished) then we hear the roar of the Aston Martin DBS and a few quick shoots of it. Then finally after the build up it turns out to be a car chase, or a sad excuse for one, which is directed in the most horrible way...really its like they filmed it from 50 different angles then literally cut up each one as much as they could and put them in any order possible while drunk.

Within the first 8 minutes of watching the car chase (and i use the term car chase loosely) there are a total of 200 different shoots thats a change of shoot every 2.4 seconds...

The film progresses, we then get past this horrible bit of directing to find the opening credits (which to be fair most people skip; the song is normally pretty rubbish, the title scene is not very good either....this is no exception). After the opening credits....or a chapter later on your blu-ray disc...we find out that Bond and M have caught Mr White (yes very reservoir dogs) and they interrogate him regarding an organisation which is called Quantum, its then found out that one of the guys in the room is a double agent thus Bond chases him down going over the rooftops of Italy and finally kills him.

Bond travels back to London, gets told off by M and we learn that MI6 have struck a deal with Tony Stark since they now have the same touch screen technology as he does in his apartment. After which Bond then travels to Haiti, then meets Camille Montes who is going to kill Dominic Greene.

I'm all for bad guys and killing but seriously was someone just looking at a packet of paints while trying to look for names for these people Mr. White and Dominic Greene...

We then learn that Greene is making a deal with the General and that he plans to overthrow the government but Greene wants land. And like Lex Luthor's dad said in Superman Returns "You can print money, manufacture diamonds, and people are a dime a dozen, but they'll always need land. It's the one thing they're not making any more of." so it stands to reason that the main chairman of an organisation would want land...

Bond gets into yet another fight this time in a boat....yeah!, another chase meaning more bad editing and camera work...yeah! and happens to save the Camille, Bond then files to Austria (yep i'd love to see how many air miles he's got as well). Upon arriving in Austria, Bond then does what everyone must do on a visit there...infiltrate a massive organisation during an opera.

Bond then gets another telling off by M and this time because she thinks he killed someone who happened to be a body guard for the prime minister, so she stops his credit cards and cancels his passport (damn no more air miles for Bond). He then travels to Italy from Austria with no money and no passport! to see Mathis who go to La Paz. In La Paz, Bond and Mathis are greeted by Strawberry Fields (yep we've moved from colours to fruits) who works for MI6 and tells Bond he must return back to London on the next flight. The three musketeers book into a hotel.

Bond and Mathis then go to a party which is being held by Dominic Greene, to be honest at this point of the film it would have been better if Dominic Greene was played by Jools Holland... the party would have been better, have you seen Jools Holland's new year show! Bond then meets Camille and the two of them then leave together and find Mathis in the boot on the car they are driving...Mathis then dies.

The two then drive to the place Greene wants to get in return from the General. They then look over the area in a plane and there is another fight scene and more bad editing (i know the editing during fight scenes is rubbish blame the Bourne Identity for it being rubbish).

After they have a mid-air dog fight they get shoot down and some how with one parachute (which doesn't open till about 10 foot away form the floor) happen to live? they find out that Dominic is causing a drought. Have these people not seen the advert for Drench with Brains in it, really its a good advert and people are bound to be buying that over using tape water...

They find out this information and in the end Bond goes and kills Dominic...we all knew it was going to happen in the end.

The film itself tried to out do Casino Royale but didn't have the story or the direction of the first film. It was a revenge story which is good however it doesn't really go anywhere, it's just a slow action film. They could have left it open for another direct sequel but instead finished it too early. It would have been fine to be a second film in a trilogy.

As the title of this review says I don't think it was down to Craig I think he done a fantastic job with what he was given. I just think that the director, in particular, needs to learn from the mistakes of this film and watch Casino Royale again to see what was so great about it. And thus I leave you with this after all is said and done "Rhythm is a dance, it's a source companion,"...Quantum of Solace may be a poor film but that advert is quality.
9/10
First Bond I Actually Liked
SerpentMage9 August 2009
I have not been a fan of Bond! I tried watching several of them, but the scene that is etched in my brain is Roger Moore surfing down a ski hill doing things that are really just beyond this world.

I suppose what I completely disliked about Bond is that it was tacky showmanship from another bygone era of movie making.

This Bond was different and yes lots of action, but you know I might even start to like Bond. Let's put it this way this was my first Bond DVD, and I know I will buy the next one.

Is this similar to say Bourne? Yeah there are hints in this movie. But then again one could argue that Bourne is the modern Bond? So if this offends die-hard Bond fans? Yeah, and well that's life... Just like how I consider myself a die-hard Star Trek fan and was not amused by the latest Star Trek movie.

Then again times change....
6/10
Craig excels, but movie disappoints
mohan597 November 2008
The blue eyes are cold, calculating and mean business. The occasional smirk is reserved for those who deign to humor a man on a personal vendetta. The body is supremely athletic, the stamina relentless, the aim unerring, and the motive compellingly haunting, albeit confusing. And despite all this, there is a heart within the man. Oh yes, there is.

Welcome to the world of Daniel "James Bond" Craig.

Comparisons with the awesome Casino Royale will be inevitable but even with that, this movie disappoints a fair bit. The plot is wafer thin, the antagonist's objectives are very vague, the action sequences, though marvelously choreographed and shot, were one too many. Ditto product placements. And I just can't believe that this movie is only 106 min long. I thought we deserved better for a sequel. A giveaway of the feeble storyline, perhaps?

Enough mud-slinging. To start with the positives, there is Craig. Then, there is the fractious relationship between M and Bond. Hitherto, Bond movies have always shown M as this overbearing watchdog who seems to irk Bond to no end. Here, we see the grudging respect and the rare concern, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on most matters. Then, it's the uneasy partnership of the MI6 and the CIA. Oh, before I forget, the opera scene is terrific as we get to see Bond get into the nitty-gritties of sleuthwork, full of impersonation, intimidation, inventiveness and insouciance. The plane chase sequence is also good, an obvious homage to the classic Bond movies, where there were only propeller planes.

Other sequences that stay on the mind are Mathis' quiet exchange with Bond over the late Vesper and Bond finally tracking down his adversary. When the latter sequence started, I almost mistook it to be the same one where Bond kills Dryden in CR, prior to the credits. Speaking of which, the traditional action sequence that precedes it is sure to kick in the adrenalin but the credits song is just awful. Chris Cornell simply rocked with "You know my name" but this one had a weird rhythm and Alicia Keys' grating vocals.

Coming to the cast, Judi Dench and Mathieu Amalric are great. The Dame is clearly on top of her game, and I enjoyed each dialogue between her and Bond completely. Mathieu made a less-than-convincing part look interesting predominantly because of his short stature and a charming smile, masking a ruthless streak along the way. But the movie simply belongs to Craig. Any doubting Thomases should now be convinced that he is the right man to play Bond.

Rating: 6/10
8/10
a good sequel to an even better film.
piksplanet1 January 2009
After all the success and box office smash of a relaunch to the Bond Franchise, Quantum Of Solace comes in with low expectations, the smallest run-time for a Bond film, an absolutely new and original script, a name suggested by none other than the star of the show himself, and a truckload of critics waiting to write it off as 'just another Bond film which could not live up to it's former'.

Michael G. Wilson's plot and Marc Foster's direction creates an all new Bond. All over again. If Casino Royale re-invented James Bond, as a character. Quantum Of Solace redefines him as a human being. Once again, we must bear in mind the Bond of the old days. One who has a License To Kill, is devoid of all emotion whatsoever, who has gadgets coming out of his toes, who lives the sweet life, and one who is never to be harmed. Well, here, Bond is already, as Mathieu Amalric's slithery Dominic Greene puts it, 'damaged goods'. As is his new partner, Olga Kurylenko's Camille Montes; with a scarred back (very noticeable. believe me!). They both put themselves through danger for very much the same reason. They are merely different people.

For more firsts.. Quantum Of Solace happens to be a direct continuation of Casino Royale, kicking off minutes after where the previous left us. It is not written by Ian Fleming. The script, the work of Michael G. Wilson. The name, inspired by the title of a short story from For Your Eyes Only.

The song for this one, Another Way To Die, performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys, is decent. Definitely has a better feel to it in the opening credits rather than in the original video. And similar to Casino Royale, it is the tune that runs through the length of the film. The film is an hour and forty six minutes of edge of the seat stuff. It hardly lets you breathe. The direction, bearing in mind the amount of action it has, is of the highest quality. Quantum Of Solace is, if truth be told, a solid action entertainer. Don't think about Casino Royale while or before or even after watching it. Don't compare. Never compare. Standing alone, Quantum Of Solace is a good film. It is a follow up. The lies, the betrayal, the hatred, the wounds, everything from the previous, gets carried into this one. Whatever happens, happens because of whatever has already taken place before. I recall something I've been taught in film studies class - Cause and effect. Direct relation.

Daniel Craig, I repeat, is still the perfect Bond. After this, it seems more like he was born to play James Bond. The ice-cold blue eyes, the fear-anger-hatred he portrays with them, his sheer physicality, the dialogue delivered as calmly as possibly, the expressionless face - it's all in the eyes. Craig, till Casino Royale came along, is the Bond we never had (all due respect to Sir Sean Connery). Mathieu Amalric is the bad-guy who wouldn't have been had they still been following the old norms of Bond. Much like Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre. He is perfectly slithery. Olga Kurylenko has that fineness in her too. Almost like she was made to play Camille. She's brutal, cold in her own way. Yet she too is vulnerable. She too happens to be damaged goods searching for revenge.

You lost someone? Find whoever who did it? Let me know when you do. I'd like to know how it feels.

With Quantum Of Solace, to James Bond, is added more feeling. More emotion. More brutality. More reality. And the people who undertook this uncertain venture have definitely gone all out in trying to successfully reboot the Franchise. Quantum Of Solace is a good sequel to an even better film.
6/10
World is changing...
petarmatic27 March 2015
This Bond film is not up to par with the changing world. It tries to keep with the classical Bond ways, but world is changing so fast that the plot looks a little bit out of date. I understand that, it is difficult to make a Bond film with all the glory and posh while millions of refugees are pouring into Europe and America. I mean, really you can not show Bond helping Syria refugees in the refugee camps trying to feed them or cloth them. It would not really have the glamor West is so hard trying to preserve.

So let us say this is not my favorite Bond film, but I love Judy Dench in role of M. She kinda won my heart. ;)
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond regenerated. Quantum of Solace is a new and very different phase in James Bond. A magnificent action film.
galileo318 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum of Solace is a direct continuation from Casino Royale (2006), which was Daniel Craig's introduction as the legendary 007.

This film has garnered considerable negative criticism, and to an extent I see why. Bond simply isn't what it used to be. The megalomaniac villains with one eye are gone, the cool one liners are absent (I was even bothered with that), and Bond has become a full on action hero, from what used to be a relaxed, laid-back spy, who occasionally fought the bad guys. People are irritated by this. Then again, Casino Royale, a critically acclaimed Bond film, was thematically very similar to Quantum of Solace.

We see Bond, still filled with anger over Vesper's betrayal and ultimate death; this has greatly shaped the character and ethic of Bond. He is now a ruthless and emotional man ready to explode, while still getting the job done.

This time, Bond is after Dominic Greene, the ruthless chairman of an ecological organisation, plotting this time to monopolise Bolivia's water supply, through instating a new corrupt President through a minor coup.

An intense, thoroughly entertaining film. Bond has changed, we must accept it.

8/10
5/10
Action over plot...still a Bond though
jdkraus19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With the success of Casino Royale, I just couldn't wait to see its sequel "Quantum of Solace." I had heard many negative reviews of this movie and I simply ignored them. I mean, it's a Bond film it has to be good. After thirty minutes into the movie of little dialog and all action, I shrugged thinking, well, there's going to be a plot somewhere. Then an hour went by, and it was still pretty much the same. Only then did I understand why the big reviewers like Ebert were bashing this movie. Sure, a James Bond film is supposed to be action-orientated, but not to the point that, that's the entire movie.

Even though I didn't have a stop watch to time the action, I estimate that well over an hour of the film were action and maybe a half hour of plot. Since there were so many action sequences, I easily got bored with the film and could not keep up with the wandering plot, which has as many holes as James Bond's car in the opening car chase/shoot-out. And to be honest, I was not that impressed with the action sequences. Director Marc Foster relied too much on the hand-held camera. I will say that I am biased against hand-held camera movies, but even Paul Greengrass's "United 93" and "Bourne Ultimatum" was fairly easy to see and understand what was happening compared to this. This was really bothersome in the Opera shoot-out, where the film constantly cuts back in forth like a montage between Bond killing bad guys and the opera. Again, I could not see what the heck was happening. Perhaps this was the director's intent? To make me feel nausea? Mmm…

As with the new villains and girls, they were alright. I will admit that Olga Kurylenko is stunningly gorgeous as Camille, and her character is rather unique for a Bond girl (since she's on a private mission of her own, as well as doesn't play around with Bond in bed). Mathieu Amalric plays a good villain as Dominic Greene, although I think he needed a more sinister name to make him sound more evil like the names Goldfinger and Le Chiffe. He won't go down in history as the greatest Bond villain, but nevertheless he is believable (although at times a wimp). However, Gemma Arteton's character is very annoying, but thankfully she's only in the movie for about 10 minutes so I should not complain too much there. I enjoyed the appearances of Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini as Felix and Mathis-who adds some comic relief to the film. Judi Dench is once again herself as M and Daniel Craig, well, I'll just say he's the new Bond and he should be for the next few years.

Yes, the film has its flaws such as having action scenes overwhelming a wandering plot, as well as a lame opening song, a "Goldfinger" rip off, no explanation to the significance to the title and the gun barrel sequence being replaced at the end of the film versus the start, but overall it is a Bond film and without a doubt, a new series will be emerging for the next several years.
9/10
Bond meets film making again
stockmonsterboy14 November 2008
Casino Royale marked the rebirth of the Bond franchise from the clownish, cheesy action sequences and laughable gadgets, and barely hidden misogyny of the 80s and 90s, to serious action genre with the same qualities of the earliest Bond flicks. Quantum of Solace continues the evolution of Bond into the 20th century.

I prefer Craig to all previous Bonds. He is a nasty SOB but he is a good guy, he has a license to kill and he uses it. The Bond women are vulnerable but strong and equals not window dressing or disposable sperm bags. I don't miss Ms. Money Penny, I don't miss Q, these were vestiges of a sixties spy fantasy.

Comparisons to the Bourne trilogy is inevitable, these re-defined the spy flick, and in this case for the better.

QoS is Bond meeting good film-making for the second time this decade.
7/10
Worth watching
kousik7 November 2008
Movie was so much expected. it fulfilled all my expectations. As we already knew that the story mainly sticks to revenge there are a lot more in this. Really worth watching. The movie stylishly starts with car chase and goes on. three chase sequences were really awesome. But the disappointing thing was "MY NAME IS BOND, JAMES BOND" was missing. Title song was a good track. The movie WORTH WATCHING. It has strong story background. I bet u 'll see more than once. This movie gives all the main things which a typical bond movie requires. Try this in a superb theater on town u'll surely enjoy it. Not too much violence so all the types of people would definitely like it.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An Average Sequel
alindsayal18 December 2021
Before I go see No Time to Die next week I have some catching up to do and I watched Quantum of Solace today and here is my review for it. The premise of the film sees James Bond attempting to take down a mysterious organisation that is attempting to take over a country.

Main Character Daniel Craig returns for his second go as Bond and I think he is good here, there isn't as much intrigue or development for Bond but he is fantastic in the action scenes. Also when there is some drama for his character to deal with I think he does it well enough. I think he is let down by other elements of the film but in terms of his performance, I thought it was good.

Supporting Characters Judi Dench is back as M and she gets a meatier role in this film and she is good as you would expect. They do build the relationship between her and Bond and both both of them do a good job in doing just that. But the issue is with the rest of the cast, Olga Kurylenko plays Camille and I think there is a decent character in there but it isn't conveyed well enough and the main issue is that she basically just disappears for half of this film which forces them to rush into trying to make you care. Mathieu Amalric plays the bad guy here and he is dull it is unreal, this is just a guy that happens to be in James Bond's way and he could have been any villain and it wouldn't have mattered and thats a big shame. The film brings back Jeffery Wright as Felix Leitner and just wastes him and I forgot David Harbour was even in this film because he was used so little.

Story The story for me is where this film really falls apart, it just isn't interesting at all. It tries to build up this mysterious organisation and Bond hunting them but basically gets pushed to the back to see Bond being chased for some convoluted reason. It tries to balance too many things and it ends up failing at pretty much all of it leading to a real lacklustre finale.

Script The script is okay, there are some good dramatic moments and as I mentioned before the relationship between Bond and M is handled maturely and appropriately. But there is a real lack of intrigue and depth to the rest of the drama and this film is incredibly serious, lacking the little subtle bits of humour that Bond films usually have.

Style The style has some good action scenes, they are high impact, exciting and for the majority well filmed. But it is also a bit of an issue, there is so much action that it feels like the pacing of the film is off. The film just clocks over 90 mins and it feels way too short and that affects the overall quality of the film.

Overall Overall, Quantum of Solace is an average film that really fails to follow on the great work that Casino Royale had done.

Rating - 5/10.
7/10
Good, but Casino Royale was better.
Foobarman15 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace was a good movie. It was fast-paced and action-filled, but I still think Casino Royale was better. This is a movie you just have to watch in cinema. All those car chases and fights - were excellent on the big screen.

I can't exactly put my finger on what is missing from this movie - that made Casino Royale better. I guess Casino Royale was just more fun to watch. Don't get me wrong, this movie does definitely live up to the standard of Bond movies and is a great movie. I really enjoyed watching it - but its just a pity that it wasn't that little bit better.

At first I didn't like the new bond (I though the old Bond was great and I was adamant I didn't want change) - now, though, I think I actually prefer the new bond.

7/10 rating.
6/10
Great action thriller, lousy Bond movie
bgood2618 July 2009
Sounds contradictory, I know, but Quantum of Solace is exactly that.

Bond is back and out for revenge. The first Bond movie to be more of a continuation than a sequel, Quantum starts with Bond trying to deliver Mr. White (shot in the last scene of Casino Royale) to M. Of course, he is being chased by men with machine guns. During the interrogation, Mr. White tells M, "The first thing you should know about us is... we have people everywhere." And he means everywhere, including MI-6.

The movie is non-stop action. There's very little drama, and almost no humor. Come to think of it, there's a lot missing from Quantum no vodka martini, no Q, no gun-barrel sequence, and Bond only got one kiss. And somehow, three writers couldn't figure out a way to include the line, "Bond, James Bond."

Yes, this was a great action movie, but it just wasn't a Bond movie.
7/10
Decent Action Follow Up to Casino Royale
RussHog14 March 2020
This is not the best James Bond movie - but I thought it was a decent followup to Casino Royale. Apparently there were some issues with the script and they rushed to film - but overall I liked it. It has a lot of Daniel Craig's Bond on a quest for revenge against the agents of Quantum (later renamed to the classic Spectre.). Angry Craig Bond is the best. The first Craig Bond film was a great spy movie, this was more of a revenge action film, and the later Craig Bond movies would become a little more Hollywood crowd pleasers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Songs Bad, The Film's Good
jadflack15 November 2008
The twenty second James Bond and the most unlike a James Bond film of the series, and that is not a complaint because this is one of the better entries, not the best but it probably is the darkest and most serious of the series so far.It helps if you have seen the previous film "Casino Royale" otherwise it can at times be confusing, but this in my opinion is the better film than the last, which was OK but slightly over rated.There is plenty of action here and as you would expect for a Bond film competent as always.There are a couple of references to past films, blatantly so in the case of "Goldfinger" which is still the best of the series. A shorter, trimmer film,again not a bad thing.Daniel Craig makes a ruthless Bond.good overall.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"He was a dead end"
BrunoRatesTheMovies27 March 2022
Better than I remembered and I think the perfect follow up to the heart broken 007. Nothing beats a good rooftop chase across some Italian town chasing baddies. The only downside for me in this was it really dragged towards the middle and there was such a big focus on Vesper. It's basically a vendetta sequel.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quantum Of Solace
98nurdinm-120 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost immediately after the final scenes of "Casino Royale" James Bond 007 (Daniel Craig) brings the shadowy Mr White (Jesper Christensen) to a secret location to be interrogated by M (Judi Dench). This triggers a global hunt for the members of a secret organisation, QUANTUM, and a key player, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). But Bond's mission is compromised by his own impulse for revenge, feelings which are mirrored by a young woman he encounters with Greene, Camile (Olga Kurylenko)...

Credit where credit's due: "Quantum Of Solace" starts fast and furiously and for the most part never lets up. With a typical Bondian car chase through the mountain roads of Italy leading into one of perhaps the most controversial Bond themes with its quick brass section, and into a short dialogue scene which leads into a chase across rooftops into another dialogue scene which leads into another fistfight which leads into another dialogue scene...you get the picture.

The first direct sequel to a Bond film, "Quantum Of Solace" does suffer slightly as I don't believe you can just watch it as a stand alone film - you definitely need to have seen "Casino Royale" to understand what the heck's going on sometimes. The dialogue is, for the majority of the film, as fast and furious as the action scenes. You have to really pay attention to what everyone's saying or else you're left five minutes previously and still wondering why that guy was killed and who these people are, etc. This is why I watched it twice - and as a result I enjoyed it more the second time of watching as I understood more about what was going on.

Usually enjoying a film more the second time you watch it means that it's a very good film. But "Quantum Of Solace" seems to have become a real Marmite film - you're either gonna love it or you're gonna hate it. No point in laying the blame on Daniel Craig's shoulders. The best Bond since Connery and before Brosnan shattered his own legacy with the appalling "Die Another Day", Craig's Bond takes the character to dark new places only hinted at by Dalton's brave but doomed two attempts. Showing little remorse at killing possible, helpful leads but softening when a friend is lying dying in his arms or a young woman mirrors his own sense of loss and anger at the death of loved one - truly, this is as close to Fleming's Bond that the screen incarnation will ever dare to get.

The rest of the cast perform very well, in particular (and perhaps brilliantly) there is a tour de force performance by Judi Dench, whose M has evolved over the six films she has appeared in to be so much more than Bond's commander; infuriatingly she gets most of the film's best lines. Kudos to to Olga Kurylenko, whose Camille is possibly the most interesting Bond girl we've had in a while; however there is perhaps a danger that her character will be seen in later years as possibly more one-dimensional, especially when placing her next to Eva Green's superior Vesper from "Casino Royale". Mathieu Almaric does as well as he can in the villain role - though the diabolical, take-over-the-world plot that often accompanies the villains takes a large side-step for Bond's own personal mission of vengeance. Now that this storyline appears to be over, perhaps these will come back into the forefront.

The film takes an interesting direction towards the final few scenes, however; it quietens, it slows. This is a Bond who has (aparently) come full circle, come to wake up to the reality of what he's doing, how he's living. This is no doubt thanks largely to the interesting choice of director, Marc Foster, whose work I have enjoyed very much but never really pictured him as a Bond director. Still he shows great skill in the action scenes and is very art-house-lite on the dialogue scenes.

You can't call this film a return to form - thats what "Casino Royale" was. Sadly, though, you can't really call this film a worthy continuation of the form. It is let down by its pace. Characters are wasted as a result, in particular Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields, who is probably the most stereotypical Bond character in the whole film, and thats saying a lot. It is also let down by its relationship with "Casino Royale" - the ghost of Vesper haunts it mercilessly. But it's not as bad as some people suggest. It's a worthy addition to Craig's legacy, and hopefully will only be a slight dud when looked back in years to come, and not a great clunker as most of the Moore films seem to be. Good effort - just not great.

7/10
8/10
Exciting and beautiful
galensaysyes28 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace would be the best James Bond film ever made, if it weren't for Casino Royale; and its first ten minutes may be even better. It's always intriguing, and often exciting or beautiful. Its main task is to confirm the direction the new series will take now that it's standing on its own two feet, without Fleming's novels for support. The new approach, as Casino Royale indicated, is more in keeping with the times, both in its realism, where it's realistic, and in its stylishness, where it isn't.

A big part of the new approach, it appears, is to allow Daniel Craig as Bond,to relax more into the role instead of always showing his pulp-fiction aspect; and the same for Judi Dench as M. We even get to see M doing her toilet at her dressing table. I question whether this idea worked. To me it looked as if both actors were out of character much of the time; but perhaps they weren't, perhaps the characters had been deliberately softened. Anyhow, their less spylike, more conversational attitude sometimes makes the film seem more like TV: like a terrific episode of The Saint.

What lifts it above the TV level, besides the budget, is a series of fight scenes, chase scenes, and spy scenes (notably, in the last category, a surveillance at an outdoor opera house) that are put together in ways I never saw before. In fact, sometimes the cutting is so fast, and the angles so oblique, that I didn't quite get what happened.

Also, the film has an eye for the Bond character like no film preceding, and paints some archetypal images of him as he's never been shown: for example, in his moments of stillness at the ends of fights or chases. Some of these images could be framed and hung in a gallery.

Casino Royale showed Bond as a man who moves from start to finish line in the swiftest possible fashion, parkour-style; Quantum expands on that to show him as one to whom no way or means to it is barred. The handiest door, path, or vehicle, he takes as his right, and as a matter of course, jumping from one to another without a second's hesitation--and the means sometimes appearing to hand with a readiness that defies probability. The earlier films pictured him doing the same, but not so wholly from his point of view. Sequences in this film make us know how it would feel to be always on the move, with no barriers to stop us; to be able to pass from one realm of action to another totally incongruous with it--from back-alley fight to fancy-dress party--and never turn a hair.

The film's plot is a very good plot, for Bond. But it's too slight for the film's full length: it lacks the scope and the basic appeal of the plots of Fleming's novels. And the point of it is never made clear in the dialogue (or if it is, I missed it). Bond goes looking for something, and he finds it, but not in the way he'd expected; that was then, this is now; he's already moved on; that's what he does. It's all clear enough in retrospect, but I didn't get it while I was watching, and had to work it out afterwards.

The supporting cast is excellent. The villain lacks the flamboyance of Fleming's villains, but is deliciously loathsome in his own right. The Bond girls are both engaging and challenging. Giancarlo Giannini, returning as Bond's ambiguous ally, is an actor who grounds any scene he appears in, as is Craig; they're perfectly matched.

While I was watching the film, I simply enjoyed it, and thought that was the end of the matter. But after I left the theater, I found my view of things transformed. The car was a glamorous weapon; driving was a thrill. I took a wrong turn onto an alley that ran behind a row of machine shops; one of the metal doors was standing open, and it looked like it gave onto a secret spy headquarters; across the alley a man in a parked car was glaring at me--was he a Bolivian agent? The alley suddenly turned into an unpaved stretch of mud, booby-trapped with potholes, and bending around out of sight; I wanted to take it at top speed, as far as it led, and crash through whatever barricade might rear up at the end. For a little while, life was an adventure.

You can't ask more from a movie than that.

Note: A number of reviewers have made a point of observing that this is the first Bond film to be a sequel; but technically, that isn't quite true. In From Russia with Love, the villains were out to get Bond for having killed Dr. No. In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond killed Blofeld (as he thought) for having killed his wife in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There are probably other instances.
6/10
The Latest in the Bond Franchise!
griffolyon123 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the newest addition to the endearing James Bond franchise, and while it may not pack quite the punch of its predecessor Casino Royale it is still better than many of the other Bond films.

The film starts only mere moments after the ending of Casino Royale as James Bond is being pursued by enemies in Italy. The entirety of the film's story focuses on James trying to find who is responsible for Vesper Lynd's death at the end of Royale, which leads him to an evil worldwide organization known as Quantum.

As previously mentioned, while Quantum of Solace may not be quite as stellar as Casino Royale it still has enough to enjoy for a fan of 007. Daniel Craig once more proves that he is quite possibly the best James Bond save for Sean Connery, as well the direction from Marc Forster is truly terrific. My only real problems with this film was that it simply did not feel as if it was a James Bond film. Firstly the writers seemed to not have a real grasp on the character of Bond himself, not allowing the character to be the secret agent we all know and love; not once did 007 deliver a classic tongue and cheek one liner like in previous films, which was very sad for a long time Bond fan. For the mentioned reason it almost felt as if I was watching a Bourne film as opposed to a Bond film, which is a tad alarming in regards to the franchises future. Still, even with these minor quibbles, Quantum of Solace is a film that definitely has its moments.

I give Quantum of Solace a slightly disappointing 6 out of 10!
6/10
Okay Bond Film
robawalker-7741718 January 2022
It was a decent continuation on from Royale. It did a good job keeping consistency in the story line across films which I appreciated. But the movie itself seemed short and abbreviated. Maybe it needed to be to close out the last and begin the rest but regardless it could have been better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
shiningdiamond17 November 2019
From Casino Royale to this mess. How is the team behind this movie happy with this? I would be embarrassed. I wouldn't put it out. Can't understand the villain, don't understand much of the plot, action scenes are crazy fast. Seriously did the editor have a grudge? I can barely see what's going on. When I do see even the action is boring. Average looking Bond girl with an ugly scar on her back. Awful theme song. I was happy when the movie came to an end. Nothing pulls you in. Nothing exciting or fun. No replay value. Watch Casino Royale again or Mission Impossible. Even Lifetime movies are more thrilling than the last three Bond films! They really need to write a good story and stop rushing for the money! It's so embarrassing how they have destroyed their legacy. I don't rush to watch Bond movies anymore. I see it as boring nonsense now.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"You people should find yourselves a better place to meet."
benjscott6 May 2019
This was the first Daniel Craig Bond film I saw at a cheap cinema. It was worth it because I thought this film would live up to expectations from its direct sequel, Casino Royale (2006). The title, Quantum of Solace of course was taken from Ian Fleming's novel, For Your Eyes Only where they also found From a View to a Kill which they dropped "From" off the title.

This film had a massive budget wasted on for being the shortest runtime of all Bond films to date. I couldn't understand where Bond was going in this film, I mean they copied Goldfinger with a death of a Bond girl. It felt bland as a filler for Casino Royale (2006).

After it's poor success and financial difficulties, Bond 23 was shelved for the time being until 4 years later.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quantum of Soul-less? Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't really want this to be a review as such. I wouldn't mind it just summing up what I think of the movie. It's easier that way.

I really do think that Quantum of Solace is, in some places, a magnificent Bond film. There's a lot of beautiful and touching scenes present throughout. I absolutely adore the Bond and Yusseff scene, Forster got this spot on. The character building scenes in this movie are brilliant. I love the scenes between Bond and Mathis, especially. They have great chemistry together. I felt that Leiter was underused though. I loved the scenes between him and Bond in Casino Royale, it was such a shame that we didn't get much here.

I really do love Marc Forsters sense of direction. As much as people go on about how badly edited it is, which in some places is true, there's tons of brilliant shots in here. My only gripe is, is that they last for half a second. I would have no problem if Forster doubled the length of some of them, but that's his vision, and I respect that.

I have no problem at all with the Gunbarrel being at the end of the movie, I've said countless times that it shows how much Bonds story-arc is complete. He's over Vesper, and has his Quantum of Solace.

However, as much as I find the character building scenes more visually stunning that the action set pieces, I really do get the feeling that the movie is incomplete. I don't have a problem with what's there on the screen. I have a problem with what isn't there. After Casino Royale, this movie had SO MUCH potential, and it wasted it. Given a few extra months, this film could've been on par with Casino Royale. If only the film delved deeper, and got more under Bonds skin.

Now, I know that the writers strike played a massive part in this, so that's partly to blame for what we got. I do feel that the film would've benefited if Forster pushed back the release to May 2009, because, quite frankly, it feels rushed.

I don't have any problem with the action, it's the short running time that makes the movie seem like an action fest. I do think that the boat and plane chase could've been cut a bit though, but that's just me. Given the lack of narrative, it just seems pointless.

Daniel Craig puts in a brilliant performance once again as Bond. Totally love this guy. It would've been great to see at least another hour of him on screen though. I love how he moves and asserts himself in the role. He's the perfect Bond for the 21st Century. Cold. Ruthless, and charming.

Olga Kurlylenko is GORGEOUS, but I would've loved to see more of Camille, and more of Agent Fields for that matter. Mathieu Amalric makes a decent enough villain. I really think that he wasn't used to his full potential though. When the trailers were released, I thought he looked so menacing and creepy. It's just a shame that none of this was transferred on film. I love Dench, one of my personal favourite actresses. It just annoyed me that she had more screen time than the main villain. (Just think of that extra hour we should've had)

The only thing I hate about the movie, and I mean truly hate, is that bloody title song. I actually despise it. I would much prefer to hear a slow ballad, instead of that garbage. The Main Title Sequence is rather good though, and quite retro. MK12 did a pretty damn good job. It would've been interesting to see what Kleinment would bring to the table, though.

Arnolds score is average, I love Time to Get Out, and Field Trip, but that's about it. The rest is generic.

Overall though, I find this a very entertaining film. In my opinion, it's a bad sequel, but a great Bond movie. It had a lot to live up to, but at some points in the movie, I get the feeling that it didn't even try.
6/10
Entertaining, but not memorable
TheCheese17 November 2008
After the previous Bond "Casino Royale" my expectations for this one were high. I like Daniel Craig as James Bond. These movies do not contain all the Bond clichés, and that is certainly something that works well for the suspense. Unfortunately in this movie they cut out another part, and that is a well told story. From minute one, this movie is action, action and more action. The plot is really thin and most characters are shallow. I remember thinking during the break that the movie still needed to get started. The first half was like a 60 minute trailer: Lots of spectacular shots, but no clue what it is about.

It was good entertainment for the Friday night. It kept me well awake although I was sleepy, but its not one that I am going to remember a year from now.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Disappointing villain
CrazyArty20 January 2022
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond. The plot continues on from Casino Royale as Bond follows the trail to a shadowy criminal organisation.

I love the initial pace of the first half, it's non-stop for the first 30 mins.

It's not Craig's best Bond movie, because I found the plot a little weak. Craig himself is great, the Bond girls are lovely with strong characters, and there's loads of action. Sadly, the villain is quite bland, one of the weakest Bond villains that I can recall.

Still a damn entertaining action movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
OHMSS anyone?
Info-80-9726338 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ok. Looking through the reviews I can agree, some of the action scene editing could've been better but 'worst Bond film ever'? Are these reviews written by people who have never seen 'Octopussy'? Or 'Never Say Never Again' (with Mr Bean as the London operative)? Or 'For Your Eyes Only'? Jeez. Those were real stinkers.

The problem with QofS is that many critics can't celebrate the uncomfortable truths of the story: not cabaret villians in secret lairs hatching schemes involving cyper takedowns, nano bot attacks or taking over space stations - but shadowy organisations controlling whole countries for gain... Salvador Allende anyone. (look him up). I can appreciate why it might not have gone down well in the USA. The uncomfortable scene at the La Paz party where Greene's 'green' company is exposed is certainly not 'Bond'.

Quantum of Solace is the most 'serious' of Craig's films - and in terms of real issues - not just Bond's love life. From the moment the opening car chase ends and Bond reveals he has a 'guest' in the boot (trunk) through the graphic but zen killing of Slate, the death of Mathis and the final off camera death through thirst this is a Bond film that doesn't tick any of the expected or easy boxes.

I'm 56. Many of these reviews are written by people not born when Roger Moore stopped playing Bond. I judged OHMSS to be one of the best Bond films back when I was 14. That has been 're-assessed' by 'Bond experts' since. I expect Quantum of Solace to be 're-assessed'' before too long.
5/10
Can't Get Out of It's Own Way
wyattej200021 November 2008
As a 007 fan I was excited about this film. Loved Casino Royale, like Daniel Craig etc. This film is a friggin mess. First of all, the camera work is terrible. It looks more like an MTV video or a video game. It is so hectic, you can't tell what's going on, total disaster. The poor editing of this film reminded me of "The Happeneing." The scenes often make no sense one after the other, you can't tell how long the passage of time is, and there are scenes that go nowhere and have no reason to be there. The actors look very bored with this minimalist pathetic script which apparently was written by 3 people (always a bad sign). Overall this film is totally forgettable. I will not watch it again. By the way the villains are totally boring and stupid.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great finish to Casino Royale
thehomealonedude31 October 2008
Went to see this first thing yesterday. After the film finished I was a little confused as to whether I liked the film. I think this was due to the fact that the film was extremely fast on the action, meaning there was probably at most 5 minute intervals between each action sequence.

Another thing that bugged me was that watching Daniel Craig I didn't feel like I was watching James Bond. Then after thinking about it, this and CASINO ROYALE was a break away from the traditional James Bond, and it was a breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong, one day I would love to see a classic James Bond back, but in this period I'm liking Mr Craig's portrayal.

Considering where James Bond was left in CASINO ROYALE, Mr Craig plays the part perfectly here, this is a man who until recently got his 00 status, so he's still rough around the edges, and he's a man desperately seeking revenge. So for that I understand his lack of humor on James Bond's part.

This is a film I think I'll need to see again to appreciate it a bit more, because like I said the film moves along so fast that you actually miss out on a few things. Now the gun barrel sequence, it was a shock when it didn't appear at the beginning, but keeping in mind this is a direct sequel to CASINO ROYALE, it was understandable, I consider this it's second act, therefore it didn't need to be at the beginning of the movie as it picks up minutes after the events of CASINO ROYALE.

There are bad things about the movie, namely the villain, he's not a strong enough villain for a James Bond film. I also didn't like the new look of M16 HQ. The credit sequence I did like, including the title song. Judi Dench as M was as fantastic as ever. In all her six Bond appearances, she has never let her role down. The action set pieces are fast and exciting.

Though the running time was short for a Bond film at only 105 minutes the film never felt short in any way.

In summing up the movie, it closes off the events of CASINO ROYALE very well, and makes a very good addition to the Bond franchise.

7.5/10
8/10
A new golden era of Bond movies
azcoppen15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There's no doubt that this Bond will be divisive - half of the fans will love it, half will hate it. I gained a unique perspective on the franchise when i sat down with another writer and talked over us creating our own, and suddenly realised how incredibly difficult it is simply because almost everything that could be done, has already been done. With that in mind, watching QoS was a different type of experience. Yes, the traditions have been omitted, but i can't believe the criticism it's got. Bourne may be similar, but where did they get the inspiration?

Maybe seeing it on the big screen was deceptive, as what i enjoyed was a masterful piece of work that kept my absolute attention from beginning to end. I'd become so tired with the awful cheesy Brosnan collection and its appallingly unrealistic plots, dreadful acting and tedious lines that i'd almost given up on it. But Daniel Craig's portrayal and the writing team really have brought something entirely new to the series and i welcome it with open arms.

First off, Bond now has a new organisation to fight (Quantum), in the same vein as SPECTRE. The way it's been set up is fantastic, as it allows for another long chain of movies around the mysterious kabbal of powerful men where political conspiracy is the underlying premise. Simply put, Bond's gone up-market and into a higher intellectual gear. Of course, it's always difficult to fault the action sequences, but we don't connect to events, we connect to characters.

The British Government are implicated as corruptly working against M and MI6, who have some of the coolest virtual computing surfaces in existence and torture suspects in foreign countries. The US's role in carving up South America with regime change is featured, and there is a real effort to keep things in step with today's political realities. It's a grandiose world plot, but is far more compelling than something like Dan Brown's latest turd. There is a palpable attempt to avoid the gaping plot holes and silly absurdities that have come to dominate the recent releases (invisible cars, anyone?) What's interesting about this new era is the wider dimension it brings to Bond's character, as his humanity enhances his cold, detached and duty-disciplined "murderous efficiency". His motivations are clearer, his guilt more prominent (through Fields' death), the relationship with M is closer and even Felix Lighter's loyalties are questioned. This is a Bond who is trying to be less of a murderer and actually growing up in the process - letting people go after the chase. The man has been stripped down to the bone to show who he really is, and Craig is just masterful in the role.

In this one the villain isn't particularly scary so much as he is slimy. I can't really see the point of Mathis reappearing, especially as his betrayal was not elaborated on (they forgive each other in another hug moment?). Why Bond is chased at the beginning or in the plane isn't clear, nor is Vesper's boyfriend's role, or how an organisation as big, wide-reaching and influential as Quantum goes so easily undetected (how can Greene be a philanthropist when he is so heavily involved in that kind of chaos?). Quite why they wear "Q" badges when they need to be secret is anyone's guess.

The secret of QoS's genius is that it is a perfect set-up for the next episodes in the series. Bond only took out one of Quantum's operatives and there is a myriad of others, and a cleverly weaved political infrastructure powerful enough to drive future plot wranglings that are more diabolical. This new set of films is re-building his identity and i suspect as they go on we will begin to see the old traditions being re-introduced. Thank God we're finally rid of cheesy crappy writing and wooden acting and onto something new.

One thing is clear though: don't take away the motifs or the fans go nuts.
8/10
Very Solid Bond film
tindog17 November 2008
This was a solid Bond film, harking back to Licence to Kill, another great film that stepped out of the standard Bond mold. If every film has every element without fail, how boring would that be. The story called for a different kind of film and it was a great one. Sure, I missed some elements, but there was enough suave Bond, great chicks and plenty of excellent action, other elements will return in future films, I'm sure. Personally, I was a little disappointed in the opening sequence and the song was... serviceable... but after that it was very good, highly entertaining. I have to admit that I miss the gadgetry of the earlier Bond films, but at the same time I agree that these days, as an audience, we can be hard to impress with gadgetry...
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A different Bond better than Casino Royale
etsm9219 November 2008
Quantum of Solace/2008/***1/2

Main Stars: James Bond: Daniel Craig Camille: Olga Kurylenko Dominic Greene: Mathieu Amalric M: Judi Dench

There are many reasons why I like certain genres of films. It is safe to say that James Bond has created its own genre. Yeah, it's an action-thriller movie most of the time. But there are also plenty of gadgets and cars and bombs and stuff, so it could be considered a machinery, techno film. Regardless, this film fits the James Bond genre. What did NOT was 2006's Casino Royale. It had the agent and the car and the gun, but where were the incognito parties/meetings? The gadgets? The cleverly named villain? Nowhere.

Quantum of Solace delivers on countless occasions and succeeds greatly in the long run. It's fast and furious (literally), smart and engaging. With the slight motifs of the James Bond theme in the background, everything is present. Yeah, there is no Q or MoneyPenny but there are gadgets and women that are flattered by Bond's charm.

Daniel Craig does very well as James Bond, second best Bond following Sean Connery. Now, he's faced with a man named Dominic Greene and ones that work for him and/or with him. And yes, the film does have the question, "Who do you work for?" in it. What is Greene planning? It's simple: to take control of a country's water supply. Why? Who cares? But the film does get released during the right time. He's an evil environmentalist, which meets right up to today's standards.

The film was directed by Marc Forster, whom I find to be quite a visionary. I think he did put his own twists on some scenes but he's not known for action movies at all. He's known for creative talking films. But if this is his first ever action film, he did one hell of a job! There's plenty of action here and plenty of vision, so it was a smart decision to choose him (unless he chose himself for the job). Two of his past films are Stranger than Fiction and Finding Neverland, two films which I liked very much. There was no action in these movies, but there was plenty of vision.

This film has both plus a few extra. And doesn't that make the movie all the more enjoyable? Bond films should have everything. A little dialogue, action, comedy, romance, etc. Even if it's corny dialogue or comedy (like the originals) it's still better than just one aspect.

This film was highly entertaining but I don't know if I should have my hopes up for the next Bond unless maybe I see Forster as the director, who's proved himself to be an excellent action director and visionary.

Movie directed by Marc Forster.
8/10
Grows considerably with age
Spectravideo22 July 2021
The first two times I saw this film, many years ago, I thoroughly disliked it. It was the worst Bond-film in my opinion. But seeing it again for the third time, I was more than surprised to find it extremely good. Strange! This time I enjoyed the fast editing - it was like a piece of video art. I found it touching watching the friendship between Bond and Mathis. I really liked the music score. Loved the film locations, loved them! And the art direction - the desert hotel setting in the end of the film is just great - who doesn't want to stay there for a while, watching the empty desert just outside your hotel balcony. Great idea. And I really liked the dialogue - it seemed more natural and free-flowing than other Bond-films. Somehow the film revealed itself to be a very good piece of film art overall. A strange Bond-film, but one of the best.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Less than brilliant
alexsong889 November 2008
I grew up watching Bond films with my favourite being the uber-charismatic Mr. Moore. Part of the fun was the common thread that included Q, the wild gadgets (rockets from BMWs, lasers from Rolexs, etc.) the wit and humor and womanizing. Definitely a move in a different direction and I find it has lost a lot of its original flavor as it moves more in the direction of the 'Bourne' series. I read that many key directors from the Bourne franchise were hired in the production of QoS and would not surprise me if this were true. I did not enjoy the constant shaking of the camera and the casting for support roles seemed suspect. Not a bad film but less enjoyable than Casino Royal in my opinion..
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Yes, at little too much Bourne, action hero than Bond
judywalker215 November 2008
I want to congratulate Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace for revitalizing Bond. Hollywood hasn't had an original idea in years and seeing them do a good retool of James Bond has been refreshing. That said Quantum of Solace good have been a better film. Casino Royale was all about the new cerebral Bond and this one was about the violent Bond; it was a little too much Bourne. That is to say it was like an action hero movie, moving from one chase, fight-scene too the next with very little connection. Daniel Craig is fantastic in the role and Judi Dench has been a welcome addition since she first appeared replace the old M. Craig's scenes with Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Gianinni (who are both always good) also stood out. I didn't care much for the Bond Girl, in fact I like Ms. Fields better; they should have used her instead of Ms. Broodface. One brooding agent at a time. Yes, I miss the gadgets and the humor of the old series, but that was the old series, that's gone and people like Roger Ebert need to get over it. Today when Hollywood is giving us very little to leave our homes for seeing a new Bond isn't that bad. I would have given it an 8 if it hadn't been for the final sequence, which was very irritating. 7/10
5/10
"Bond, if you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be deeply appreciated."
drewnes30 May 2021
In a way, I do appreciate this sequel because it gives Bond closure from Casino Royale. The intro is great, and I really thought we were getting more of what we got in the first film, but it doesn't happen. It might be the worst in Craig's series.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not quite as good as Casino Royale, but still amazing.
vincent_tillema9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After reading some mixed reviews about QoS, I went to the cinema fearing the worst, and came back with a big smile on my face.

Well first of all let me say this. It isn't quite as good as CR was. It slightly lacks depth and length. On the other hand, this feels like the most "Bourne-like" Bond so far, while also having some really unique visual styles we haven't seen before in Bond movies. It might look like Bourne at times, but its not. Its better, well, different.

QoS picks up right where CR stopped, and puts the viewer in the middle of what must be one of the best car-chase scenes ever. First comparison with Bourne, because it is the same thing as we have seen in the Bourne trilogy. But, it is better, harder and more intense. The way those poor little Alfa Romeo's meet their end against either trucks or down in a ravine is just spectacular. The foot-chase scene that follows delivers the same thrills again. It mixes two events that don't seem to be connected, but who come to a climax at the same time. You have to see this, but it works really well. The fighting scene in the opera house does the same this. Its beautifully filmed, very un-bondesque. Sounds get dull, shots of two events switch constantly and the camera-work is top notch.

This movie sees Bond at his rawest, while still keeping him emotional at some occasions. Without trying to spoil too much, the scenes with Mathis are good examples. Craig really delivers one of the best Bonds so far, again.

The climax of the movie is not quite what you expect it to be. Its still awesome, but it felt a little bit empty. There are more downsides to this movie. Greene is not that big of a villain as he should be. Some small things show off his evil, but he never seems like a big threat. The constant switching of locations in the first half of the movie also seems too forced.

From the scene's I mentioned before, to the unique "where are we?" shots (well unique in terms of style for a Bond movie), this movie is really well filmed. The scene in the opera house might well be the highlight of this movie. We finally get to see Bond do some proper spy-work, while the high pace of the movie isn't turned down. The movie leaves very few questions open, but a third movie in this story can certainly be made.

So in the end this is a Bond film you might not like instantly. Reverences to Goldfinger etc, are nice for older fans. But it feels different from earlier Bond movies. More like a action movie than The Dark Night did, with all respect, less of a Bond movie than Casino Royale did, and like a better version of Bourne. More depth in terms of story would have been nice. I sincerely hope the director stays for the next movie. He should take a look at Casino Royale and mix its best parts with this movie.

So, with two "new" Bond style movies, I can say Bond is back for good. Its down to earth again, believable, hard yet emotional at time. Yes the slapstick is gone, but I don't miss Q. I didn't even miss the barrel-scene, I didn't miss the Bond, James Bond phrase. This Bond is different, and its Bond at its best.

9/10
6/10
Flat...not the cleverness we're all expecting
AaronSWalker16 November 2008
I really liked Casino Royale, which was got me into the theater to watch this one. What I came to find was that it was an hour into the movie and I was still waiting for it to start, and more importantly, to start making sense. The revenge story on the girl's part was clichéd and predictable, and the revenge story on Bond's side was not fleshed out enough. It was like they visited certain plot points by giving them a few lines of dialogue, but really we were just being transitioned from one action sequence to the next. And to further the frustration, there wasn't the clever villain that we've all come to love in Bond movies, but rather just some vague business deal being done by shady business men. I'm okay with no gadgets and a more serious Bond feel, in fact I prefer it, but there needs to be more focus in the story if the filmmakers are going to take the blinders off by removing all of the larger than life elements that are usually characteristic to these movies.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
008 Is Lonely And Angry
mrspasm29 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bont returns again once more for another time, and this time he has to chase bad guys and save a sexy woman. The original plot is a sequel to the previous year's Casino Royal which was heralded as a new beginning for Bone. True enough, as it saw Bond killing members of the Royal family when previously he had spent his life trying to protect them. Many didn't like this shift in tone- I didn't care as long as there was plenty of guns, gadgets and excitements. Quantum Of Soalce is aptly named- Bondy is now on his own after the FBI realised that killing the Royal Family wasn't the best idea and they want to blame it all on Bon. He has no friends, so the likes of P, W, and of course Mr Gadget- F do not appear in the film. This means there is a lack of humour and a more hard edged tone. Craig David suits this role perfectly as he rewinds through all the people he has met and tries to work out who the person who framed him is. His only friend on his journey is a sexy girl he meets along the way. She, Ivana Complenti wants revenge on the same bad guy Pond is after (Franz Grenade). He has a scary scheme to take over the world by turning water into diamonds. Of course Bint's main mission is to catch the man (Claws) who killed his woman from the last film- Gloria Stitz.

Happily there is less card playing in this film, and more car racing- a much better game in my opinion. There is an excitement chase at the start where Blond and a group of bad guys run through the streets, then jump into cars to speed along the edge of a cliff, only to parachute off the cliff into a helicopter, fight in the helicopter down into the sea where they continue to fight on a hovercraft which moves from the sea, onto the beach, along the busy motorway, and back up the mountain into another sets of cars. This 40 minute scene is done in one take, without any cuts. Other bonuses include Bend being chased through the jungle by the same lasers who almost chopped him up in Goldenfinger, another fight with aeroplanes, a motorbike chase on top of a car, and various fist fights with lots of tables being broken. Not the best Bob film, but certainly the best so far.

Best Scene: The little music interlude from Casino Royal being re-used as Band remembers his dead wife. It was very subtle, but very sad and obvious.
10/10
Forget Casino Royale this is a amazing film!
dfranky872 November 2008
All the reviews i have read keep saying its not as good as casino royale but the thing to remember is that CR was a stand out film that changed a film franchise from near death, same as Batman begins.

I was lucky enough to see this film on thursday night at a special charity red carpet event and with all the hype i was expecting big things! I was not let down! from the word go the film kicks you in the teeth with a amazing car chase through italy starting ten mins after the end of CR.

Quantum of solace is as good if not better than CR it has a lot of depth and a story like never seen before in a bond movie. We now see bond driven by revenge and on a mission to bring the people behind vespers death to a swift justice. But on his path of destruction he unfolds a plot behind a secret organisation called "Quantum" to over turn governments in return for land. What follows is a Spectacle of action amazing set pieces which just simply blow you away!

I for one loved it the only bad point is that it is over too quick!

Daniel Craig has yet again show us how Bond should be played in the 21st century. A cold ruthless man on a mission to avenge the one he loved! This is a must see movie for all Bond and action film fans!
1/10
Camera shake and choppy editing
ayallop9 July 2018
It's like the director and editor have a new toy to play with. Frustrating to watch due to all the camera shake and 10 edit chops per second. I can't stand it when films are ruined by this sort of filming, it adds nothing and removes so much enjoyment.....
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Quantum of Solace just limped along and was very disappointing for a James Bond movie.
Cinemaniac19841 November 2015
A majority of James Bond movies aim to outdo its predecessors however I strongly felt that Quantum of Solace was just scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas and action to keep the movie going.

Continuing after Casino Royale (2006) in which Daniel Craig makes his mark with style as James Bond, Quantum of Solace is basically about James Bond seeking revenge after Vesper Lynd is killed towards the end of Casino Royale. Aided by the newest Bond girl Bolivian Agent Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) who also has her own agenda, the trail leads to a ruthless businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who is soon revealed to be the mastermind of a powerful but secretive organisation yet is hiding behind his company which specialises in the environment and reforestation.

Casino Royale was an enjoyable movie however Quantum of Solace just felt like it was limping along. Save for the opening car chase at the start, the rest of the movie overall was nothing special. The trailer looked decent however the end result was a disappointment. Daniel Craig was fine as James Bond but the story itself was beyond salvation. Were the writers struggling to come up with story ideas? Because that's what it felt like.

Skyfall (2012) thankfully redeemed the James Bond franchise and was explosively entertaining from start to finish, and to date has been the best Bond movie in the Daniel Craig era. That aside, Quantum of Solace was one of the most disappointing James Bond movies that I have seen.

5/10.
7/10
Slighltly better than most of these reviews say
dallasag8113 March 2021
Been watching the series....2nd time for this movie. Didnt like it the first time. This time in context right after CR the movie is easier to follow. Actually enjoyed it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Big Downgrade
philipposx-1229024 January 2018
There was absolutely no way that A Quantum Of Solace was going to top Casino Royale two years earlier, but even with that in mind, it was a little bit disappointing. In many ways people hoped to get some background information about Vesper Lynd, a more professional James Bond (since CR showcased Bond becoming Bond) and a complex storyline to match Casino Royale's greatness. What we got instead was a total letdown of main characters, both bond girls being bland and boring, the villain (Greene) being one of the worst in the series and a Jack Reacher James Bond. Some stunt scenes (especially the opening in the church) are dramatic and very well executed and there is still some James Bond vibe to it, but all in all QoS is one of the weakest Bond Entry's and that sadly after the best of them all. 5/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
As Camille says of Bond, complimenting, "There's something horribly efficient about you."
Offworld_Colony7 February 2020
A kinetic film of rhythms, not unlike Jazz; the wrong notes of the writers' strike leading to each creative and technical department grooving together to create a chaotic, punchy, moody film that is so brisk that it keeps on giving little flourishes and details each time I watch it; a beautiful, immediate and scrappy Casino coda with its offbeat sensibilities, clear sense of direction, dedication to the blistering immediacy of grief, and its total sensory experience.

QoS is the runt of the litter but as such, possibly carries one of the most unique, palpable, and vibrant tones over all of the other Bond films, and certainly the other Craig's.

This Bond film is an art-house action film, an existential rampage, an opera, and as a coda for Casino works better than it gets credit for.

It's a beautiful mess that, without the writer's strike, genuinely could have been a rival to Casino. As it stands it's got personality, and that goes a long way. And also possibly one of the best openings in film history. I'm hooked, I love it, and Craig plays about a hundred emotions, in lieu of a good script, across his face at all times, he really is the gem of this series.

A film that materialises as the antithesis and antidote to Casino Royale, functioning as a tight coda, stylistically and tonally concurrent with the state at which we leave Bond in at the end of Casino Royale.

A blink and you'll miss it arthouse flick with the flinching bone-crunch of a Bourne, the visuals of globetrotting eco-drama, and the editing of a documentary. If viewed with the knowledge of the writer's strike's effects, the film can be seen for its merits; A score that's better than Casino Royale, the genuine mystery of the Quantum organisation, some sharp, economical dialogue, some divine action (the brief, palpable, frightening shootout in the crowded restaurant after the opera for example).

The damaged film is a shadow of what it could have been and not quite a fitting second outing for Craig but it has a spark, something to love, I frequently defend it and find myself reaching for it even more frequently when I need a burst of beautiful, pared down, energy.

The opening sequence flowing ever closer to the tunnel ranks as maybe my favourite film opener of all time, and the simple, and gentle plane sequence drinking with Mathis is rivalled only by that tremendous cut where Bond convinces him to join him at his villa and when Mathis' girl asks where he is, instead we get a quick cut of Bond downing his drink, disconnected out of time, a glee-less grim reaper having claimed his next prize, settling Mathis' fate in that very moment.

If the, clearly out of place, Dominic Greene had been removed and instead more of a focus had been put on the interplay between Vesper's boyfriend and Bond, in order to reframe and enlighten more of Casino Royale, there wouldn't have been so much disconnect between the storylines, as if the writers couldn't have a Bond film without a supervillain in it.

That aside, the theme of revenge is cool and shared between Camille and Bond, as he plays out his wish fulfilment by training her how to take a life in cold blood. One can only dream that the next film has David Harbour's CIA man Beam in it. The air, water, fire, earth themes in the setpieces are a clever little gimmick even if it doesn't translate too well. By the close of the film, the Algerian love knot from Casino, settled in the snow outside, is a lingering image, the quest for Bond's closure is a powerful, achieved one, and the broken raging man is calmed, if not able to ever fix himself.
8/10
In my opinion...underrated
braddoesfilm8 December 2020
I understand with the vast majority of Bond enthusiasts...this is one of the more least popular films. I simply don't understand that. I love this movie. It may work best for you to follow Casino Royale up with this back to back. The opening car chase is one of the best I've seen in cinema history. The foot race and scaffolding fight scene is one of the most intense in a bond film. The boat chase is awesome! The plot is more realistic than a crazy guy trying to hijack nukes and hold the world for ransom. There isn't any campy humor which is what ruined skyfall and a little bit of spectre for me. The ending is also one of the most satisfying endings in a movie. I hope people will one day wake up and give this Bond classic another chance.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quantum of Class
michaelarmer23 December 2019
A quantum is a small amount, this has more than that, but its not the best. the screenplay is all over the place and it looks like some scenes are missing. Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond, and his performance her is as good as any. Its a well made film good photography and scenery but again some locations are wrong, Italy, England and Austria are authentic, but the Russian scenes are not, nor the Haiti and Bolivian scenes, for Bolivia they chose Chile which is as near as dammit, but a bit sandy, and what confuses me is they use Panama and Mexico for Haiti, in an earlier film they used Mexico and Florida to replace Panama, but now they go to Panama to fake other locations!

This is a follow on to Casino Royale, a kind of part 2, the first time done in the franchise, maybe that is why its not as good as it could have been, its a bit slow in parts and its got a kind of anti-climax at the end. The acting is all good, Judi Dench continues as a great M, Mathieu Amalric is a great evil bad guy, he certainly looks the part of a psychotic, the supporting cast are as usual very good led by Giancarlo Giannini and include the granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin, Oona. Still no 'Q' and Moneypenny again though, the character of Tanner returns, this time played by Rory Kinnear, and Jeffrey Wright is Felix Leiter, Wright is an excellent actor but as this is presented as a prequel (along with Casino Royale) to Dr. No, and which is supposed to be at the start of Bond's career, he is the wrong colour, it needed to be a white man for authenticity, but he is very good as Leiter.

Bond Themes:- Helicopters again, but not much else, they have continued to abandon most of the Bond themes as in Casino Royale and no Gadgets which worked well in Casino Royale which centered on Drama, Acting and straight action. No really identifiable henchmen, just a collection of different bad guys. Cars:- a great Aston Martin DBS again, with a Ford GT and a few Alfa Romeos, and a Range Rover. Bond Girls:- Just one true one in this - No. 64 Agent (Strawberry) Fields played by Brit Gemma Arterton who is an assistant to Bond but after he shags her gets killed by oil in a copy of the painted gold death scene of Shirley Eaton in Goldfinger. The main Girl in the film is Camille played by gorgeous Olga Kurylenko (Ukraine) and is definitely the best looking, but I can't count her as there is no sex or sexual chemistry between her and Bond

Not the best, but all in all another good edition, can't wait for the next!
4/10
"Casino" was the height of the franchise, "Quantum" was the pits.
BBB20 November 2008
Stephen King was going to name "Casino Royale" as his second favorite Bond movie behind "Goldfinger." For the purpose of the article he was writing he re-watched "Goldfinger." He came back to the article and decided that "Casino" was the best instead.

I, too, loved "Casino Royale". Craig made me believe he was a professional killer, which no other Bond actor has ever done. Practical, cold, exacting, properly motivated. The screenwriter and the director homed in on those stylistic elements that made Bond fascinating to watch, eschewing gadgets in favor of the potency and novelty of Bond himself and keeping the action sequences at least reasonably within the limits of suspended disbelief.

None of these qualities were present in the mess that was "Quantam of Solace." It becomes apparent within the first few minutes that this movie was made by a different, inferior director. The suspense, the spy fetishism, the coolness factor of "Casino Royale" just weren't there. The film consists of only three relevant parts. The first, we find out the boring fact that Mr. White isn't the head of a SPECTRE-like org, he's just a pawn of it. Then we get a tidbit about Vespa's boyfriend. 40 minutes of routine, seen-it-before, Jason Bourne-ripoff crap later, we get closure on Mathis' role from the first movie. Another 40 minutes of cookie-cutter plot and then we get a sleepy resolution to the Vepsa sub-plot from the first movie.

The plot revelations are unstimulating and uncreative. The rooftop foot chases and boat races are unoriginal, the antique propeller plane vs. modern fighter w/skilled career pilot nonsense is predictable and an insult to the intelligence and attention span of the audience. The shaky-camera routine is a poor substitute for skillful editing and direction, just as the last Bourne movie was. M is demoted from an implied seasoned, ex-spy cum agency head to a befuddled, subservient student of Bond.

I understand that the studio pushed back the movie as long as it did because it didn't believe it had enough time to come up with good script. They obviously didn't push it back far enough.
6/10
After Spectre...
EvanKevelson26 February 2021
I've been rating on a "Bond 007" scale not a film scale... I typically rate certain types of films within that genre e.g. 9 Star War Films, over 20 Marvel not including Fantastic 4 or X- men... I'll place the DC films on the same type of scale with the exception of the Nolan Trilogy. When I first saw this after "Casino Royale" I literally said what the hell is going on, even after rewatching Mr. Craigs debut I attained more clarity but was disappointed. Then Skyfall I made no connection and that was a phenomenal Bond film despite the fact that there wasn't a woman... I appreciated Spectre though at the end it departed from the Darkness that Craig has brought to Bond. However after Spectre I raised this from a 4.75-5 to a 6.5.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a huge disappointment
jlphotography-11 November 2008
I went to see this last night and found it a big disappointment.

Casino Royale was a brilliant Bond film. Sadly this isn't.

Daniel Craig and Judi Dench work hard with what they've been given, but they've been given so little.

Personally I found very little I liked about the film. The story was weak and the film confusing. The style of filming many of the action scenes was dreadful. You couldn't tell what was happening clearly and occasionally left me with a feeling somewhat like vertigo and we were sat at the back of the cinema.

I didn't even like the theme song. Not a Bond theme to me, but then this isn't a Bond film in my opinion.

Really this was such a great shame after Casino Royale.
8/10
Quantum of Physics
echozdog23 July 2010
OK I went into this one with low expectations. I've heard all the "not a bond movie" reviews and was expecting a bad Borne movie. Well there is some truth to that. The action scenes are straight from the Borne movies in that they are annoyingly hard to follow (and don't follow much in the way of being believable). I'm a firm believer that this style of action scenes does not come from the desire of the director to make a more engaging scene, but that they are easier to film in tiny 1/4 second slices and then edit the hell out of it. Shake the camera a lot so to cover up the mistakes. When they did this in the Borne movies and the public loved it we all have to suffer from the imitations.

As for the rest of the movie...it was great. I liked the introduction to the new SPECTRE (Quantum) and liked that aspect of the old Bond films. The villain was kind of crazy enough. I did like that his second (the guy with the little unusualness that all spy movies have) didn't wind up in usual fist fight with bond (this is not a spoiler).

I didn't like the bad guys and I liked the good guys. Action scenes could have been done better (probably budget cuts). Acting was standard.

8/10 Good cheap fun.
5/10
Hello Mr. Quantum
TheCorniestLemur16 October 2021
Okay look. I don't hate it.

Sacrilege, I know. Buuuuuuuut...dare I say that I can see a really great film buried somewhere inside this? Maybe one even better than Casino Royale?

Because I can. There's so much potentially interesting stuff in this that I think would be amazing themes to a Bond film in theory - Bond going rogue, US interventionism, manufactured scarcity, etc etc. It's just that it's all completely surface level, and by now, everyone knows why.

This is one of the most infamous victims of the 2007 writers' strike, and not to imply that I don't think writers (or anyone not towards the very top of the Hollywood totem pole for that matter) deserve better treatment and pay, because they do. It's just that...could you not have just waited until they had their demands met? Why would you make a film that hasn't been properly written?

Because had they just waited those few months to get this finished by a professional writer, I honestly think this would have matched up to Casino Royale, and maybe even surpassed it.

The central problem with this film is that it wants to be a continuation of Casino Royale, specifically how (spoilers for that film) Vesper betrayed Bond and then died, leaving him heartbroken and, as he's shown in this film, desperate for vengeance against the mysterious organisation responsible for blackmailing her. Fine in theory, but the problem is that's just about all it is.

Bond just spends the whole film plowing through Quantum's goons in a series of outright terrible shaky cam action scenes (seriously there's one in the whole film that was decent), and the film pretends that he changed or learned anything at all with the final scene, but all it ends up feeling like is he wanted revenge, he got it...and that's about it. There's the occasional scene where it seems like they wanted to do more with Bond's character, but they just don't because this script wasn't finished.

And as for the other characters, well the Bond girl of the hour is...boring, frankly. She mostly just tags along with Bond because she happens to also want revenge against someone the main villain works with, and needless to say, this is a far cry from Vesper's sassiness and flawless chemistry with Bond.

And speaking of that main villain, christ almighty what a nothing character he is. He doesn't do anything except talk to people in an awkwardly quiet voice, smile creepily, and look more like he'd cry if someone called him a poopyhead than any sort of threatening I've ever seen.

Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are still nothing short of perfect for the roles of Bond and M, and they certainly have their moments in this, but all in all, this plays out like a depressingly average revenge thriller that every so often had someone who once wrote a Bond film on set to write a page.

And it just...sucks, because I really do think there was something here that could have been great.

Oh yeah, and I guess since it is a Bond film, I should mention that the opening credits and the song accompanying them...eh? It's okay? It kind of encapsulates the whole film in a way, because it doesn't ever live up to Casino Royale despite a few flashes of greatness here and there.
2/10
Is this a Bond movie?
Gavin_NZ12 January 2022
It seems more like an attempt at a touchy feely soap opera drama with a few hand to hand combat scenes thrown in. The only thing positive i can say is the aforementioned fight scenes were quite intense. It fails miserably on all other levels. I get that the idea was to strip it right back down to its core of a (very human) tough guy spy movie, closer to the original incarnation but in the process it loses its 'Bondness' and everything we've come to love about the franchise. All due respect to its creator but the original Bond was rather one dimensional and bland. He has since evolved into something much bigger and better. All the staple fun stuff has been sucked out now, like the cutting edge gadgets, the over the top chases, the strategically placed theme music and the evil megalomaniac villain, oh and did I mention the gadgets? Let's face it, Daniel Craig is a good actor but he is definitely no Bond. As I a die hard fan of the franchise, this is very disappointing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's not for everyone
djohnson-1752822 December 2019
I have been and always will be a bond fan. I was so looking forward to this film as the follow up to the excellent reboot of the franchise with Casino Royale.

The opening car chase was really good as were the scenes with Bond and Mitchell fighting, although the use of CGI here is a bit ham fisted to say the least and you can still clearly spot Bonds stuntman with his highly distinguishable ginger hair.

The fight scene in the hotel with Slate, the boat sequence with Camille and Bond are quite good as are the excellent scenes at the theatre where Tosca is playing.

However, after about 40 minutes into the film, it loses the plot. Well, to be exact, there is no plot to follow and hold the film together. As a result the film flounders.

It is almost as if filming stopped for the summer and when it resumed the director had changed. The lead baddie is weak and has no real menace, his henchmen are non entities.

The musical score was good throughout.

The aeroplane scene is spoilt with poor CGI and the ending at the desert hotel is somewhat disappointing in alignment with most of this film.

It is a real shame that the second half of this film was so poor and uneventful. With some more expansion of the plot and characters it could have been really good.

As Mr White said "It's not for everyone"
6/10
Rich in Action, Poor in plot.
TheEmulator231 April 2009
This is one of the most brainless Bond films in a series full of Brainlessness movies. Unfortunately that is saying a lot, as Pierce's last film as Bond was pretty absurd, but in a good way. These films w/Craig seem to be taking themselves more seriously so they in turn they need a little more plot & less fluff. Like others said this is a darker film & it shows. Some say Craig's Bond is just bubbling w/anger, but I saw it as a plain ol' thinly written. Now everyone rages about "Casino Royale" but I never saw it more than a good film & definitely not the best Bond film. This is a decent film & the action sequences are absolutely superb. Unfortunately that doesn't make up for the lack of a story. For those that haven't seen "Royale" or even seen it recently, it would really help seeing that before this. It would help you enjoy this film a lot more. For the die hard Bond fan's this will please you to a certain extent, & for those that don't know the series very well well you will be pleased w/the action to say the least.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Poor cinematography = boring action
peterjamesdeath31 October 2008
Some people may complain about the lack of a plot or pointless violence, however these characteristics are as much a part of Bond as product placement.

However the worst points in this film for me where the poorly shot action sequences. The unstable, and largely unwatchable, sequences left many people struggling to follow the action. At times it became such a chore that I found myself looking away and waiting for it to finish. While there were some better sequences later on this wasn't enough to rescue the film.

This film reminded me more of Transformers than anything else. Dominated by action sequences that left my cold and bored.

I hope that the next film is better.

At least my wife didn't leave this film talking about Daniel Craig too much, which is probably good for me but not for him.
7/10
Not as good as 'Casino Royalle' but still worth a look...
cat_ranchero14 October 2012
Production wise, I couldn't fault it, shot very well both on location and at Pinewood with, as usual, an excellent soundtrack. On the down side, the fight sequences did remind me of the 'Jason Bourne' films a little bit too much, I expected something a little more original. Over all, just what we've come to expect from a modern Bond movie, it just lacked a little humour to lighten it up a bit, apart from that, pretty enjoyable… if a little over complicated.

SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 7.4/10

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
New Bond? Better acting, worse movie
ivan-30826 March 2009
I don't consider any "Spoilers" in this but some might think a few names are dropped. It seems the writers and directors decided that the only way to make 007 interesting is to put very very expensive FX one after another no matter of how lame the story is. The whole plot which is a mystery and it is twisted without any real sense is actually very simple. The time-lines are all out of sorts. While this is to be an earlier Bond and some equipment are kept on that base other things are on present time-line. He is an earlier Bond but drives the new car but carries the old gun. M is the new M and there is no Moneypenny so I guess M is doing everything herself. At the end of Casino Royale he shot Mr. White in the foot and in this one the movie starts right there. But then based on Mathis experience it has been at least a few weeks if not more. The car chase for opening and the DB5 which used to have bulletproof glass is now getting broken easily. Bond is becoming a totally rogue agent. M who had so much power in Brosnan's time now just runs around after 007. Bond is an MI6 agent but does not follow any orders or protocols. In Casino Royale the concept was that M has allowed him to drop off the radar to do the job and find the clues. In this one I am surprised that after the first 40 minutes Bond did not tell M to go #$^% herself!

We always liked the unreal FXs but some of it is just stupid. A hotel in the middle of the desert that has so much H gas in it and is blowing up left and right. Bond is close to indestructible as superman.

The villain is a spoiled kid or acting as such. I like DC as one of the best 007s but the movie is getting too much out of hand. $225 million to shoot this? Waste of money.
6/10
what did i just watch?
BruceWayne324 December 2017
Seen this movie (4) times, still dont know what its about. Casino royale was better.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A straight-ahead sequel that neither disappoints nor surprises
setanta-24 November 2008
It plays like a paired down version of Casino Royale, which at 106 minutes just might have been the producer's intention. This is not a handicap for the most part as this is essentially a sequel to the prior film and carries over some of the plot and most of the motivation. Although there were a couple of moments when I wondered for an instant if we had skipped a reel. To call the editing "tight" would be an understatement.

The performances are skilled, the stunts are exciting (thought some of the CGI could have used fine-tuning- particularly a fall through a glass ceiling), and Craig is starting to warm up a bit more to the suave side of Bond. I think the only thing noticeably lacking is a bit of fun. With this film we get back into the familiar Bond realm of preposterous schemes and omnipotent criminal organisations. It makes for great spectacle but the gravitas with which it is dealt could become a bit self-indulgent if left unchecked.

Of course I understand the need to close the loop on this little character development cycle, but I think it would be best to move away from the perpetual scowl as the franchise moves forward. James Bond is not Jason Bourne; I realise that is the box-office that the studio is trying to cash in on these days but you can only push it so far. You need that wink and a nod to the audience that we're all in on the game. Otherwise you start to drift towards the overly-serious, self-caricature land of Steven Segal.

All things considered "Quantum of Solace" is a good investment for your entertainment dollar. Yes, you've been on the ride before but there are still thrills to go around for all.
7/10
Action!
blindredemption17 November 2008
Is certainly what director Marc Forster literally must have called out before each time the film started rolling. QOS is a train heading fast destroying all in it's path. Car chases, fist fights, fire fights, explosions, it has it all, but. Oh yes I said but, it's all very pale in comparison to the golden piece of cinema called Casino Royale.

QOS delivers all the action & then some over Casino Royale, but QOS falls a little short in character, in which Casino Royale thrived upon. We understand Bond is out on the war path to avenge the woman he loved, but could he also show it without bullets & magnificent car chases? I say there could have been a few scenes that could have been expanded upon so to speak.

So falling short of expectations that had been set to high heights, Quantum of Solace is still a great ride & is still very enjoyable. A SOLID 7 out of 10.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Different
waqassaleem-8520122 June 2021
It doesn't really fell like a typical bond film. The story is average. The performances by the cast are good. It feels like things just sort of happen and there isn't any reason there.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Really A Big Screen Movie
Nait200411 December 2008
I was disappointed with QoS.

The action sequences were a little too frantic, especially the opening car chase, to really have any suspense value. The story had merits, the build up of a Spectre-esquire group of world class do-badder's is a solid platform for the following films. However, it falls a little flat in its delivery, making skips and jumps from one set piece to another with very little in exposition. Craig does another good job of playing Bond, and Judi Dench really is becoming the quintessential M. But the villains lack menace and Olga Kurylenko is a waste, her character is weak in background story and her skills as an actress cannot make up for it. Mathis, Fields, Felix are all underused and underdeveloped.

But, it could have all still worked. This is a film that is crying out for a Directors Cut (or if this is HIS cut, a Fanedit). Expand the action scenes with some establishing shots, give the dialog a little more volume, and stick some music cues into some of the Bond In Danger scenes to add a little more peril.

You should see this movie, its still a Bond movie, and watching Craig's development of the character is worth the price of hiring it. But with the jumpy action, hard to follow story, and slightly uninteresting dialog, rent it on DVD instead.
5/10
Problem with Quantum pinpointed.
w-1028 November 2008
The movie itself isn't bad. It has all the elements that a James bond movie is supposed have. It has the the essential parts that a movie needs to be a success. The only problem is the execution. It has quite a lot of flaws. Although the flaws don't necessarily make this movie unwatchable.

It has the Bond Girl, Bond, the villain and the revenge plot. It has the action, the stunts, and the fast paced car chases everyone loves.

The only problem is that that's all it has. The direction is a huge problem. I feel like I came down with a case of ADD or that that is who this movie is intended for. The movie never stops moving, along with the camera movement. I feel like almost every shot in the movie is a track shot and it;s like there rarely is a single frame where the camera isn't following something. The movie itself I feel suffers from over editing. There's just way to much of it. Whenever someone enters a room or changes position there's a new angle or a new point of view. It's really annoying and unnecessary. These might be seen as nit picking but camera shots and angles are supposed to tell a story, to give more insight and possibly show some artistic side to the directors capabilities, possibly some class. Although there's some nice scenery in the movie I find there's just an absence of thought behind what's being shot. Like they just decided to put the actors in pretty locations hoping it might take away from the fact that that's all it is. Maybe what I'm getting at is that there's just a lack of focus in the movie. Casino Royal had focus and that's what kick started this franchise again. I feel now that they did that, I feel like everyone involved in this movie decided that there didn't need to be a lot of depth to this movie and that they could just get by with gratuitous money shots of everything expected in a James Bond movie. A bond movie, for a 007 movies sake. Not bad, but not great. A disappointment. I can see what other people didn't like about this movie.
3/10
An unnecessary evil.
darkfighter3713 April 2009
This is my first Bond movie. It will also be my last.

With a title like "Quantum Of Solace", and opening credits that include binary sequences and small amounts of fluid dynamics, I was expecting this to be a thinking person's movie. However, these hopes were well and truly dashed pretty early, and they didn't improve as I sat through the 90-minute film, seeing 85 minutes of action, violence and killing, four and a half minutes of sex and/or Bond chatting up the girl, and perhaps 30 seconds of meaningful dialogue that advanced the plot in any way. Not that there was much of a plot to begin with.

The enemy is not supposed to know the identity of the spy that is working against them. It looks horrible on film. Couple that with a plot that we've seen millions of times over (again, not that there was a plot) of a ruthless CEO/criminal mastermind that is outsmarted by the dimwit good guy and killed and/or given his just desserts. And the dimwit good guy escapes and survives everything despite the odds that are severely stacked against him, because it's a million-to-one chance and we all know how THEY turn out. It's just unrealistic, even for a film.

Dreck, garbage and just plain bad. The only good thing that came out of this 90-minute buttock-numbing experience is that at least I didn't die of boredom and nausea.
7/10
Some reviews are just mind numbingly dumb
suvechhabose4 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There's a guy who wrote , Plot) now James bond is trying to save a third world country 's water crisis ; Its okay to serve Majesty & drinking her laboratory water but when James tries to knot his past & solves a water crisis in Bolivia in one single movie,

"Brits aren't going to like it" haha.. i so want to shoot the guy in the point blank if that's possible.

See the problem is people are paying money to watch vfx , quantum physics , which they ve absolute no idea about but they are rating a good (mind you not even close to best) bond movie as 1, 1 out of 10.

I know action sequences were bad in this so was acting from other actor except Mr. Craig That's the reason why m giving it a 7.

Pathetic Pale looking soup eating judgemental brits Go direct a movie !

M going to enjoy Daniel Craig's last bond movie & no matter how bad it is m going to rate it as 10.
7/10
What's up with all the hype? slightly overrated?
choochootrain294 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hi everybody!

This is my first comment posted here and its mainly because I was expecting something better.

Splitting up the movie in parts to comment:

  • Plot - Very intense start, continues from Casino Royale. Ending seemed unfinished.


  • Characters - Daniel Craig played Bond dark and crude as he should since the love of his life betrayed him and died. Olga Kurylenko's character followed a vengeful path, apparently similar to Bond going after the guy who made Vesper do what she did to him and die. Gemma Arterton's character was not on-screen for long and didn't seem to play much of a part in anything, other than sleep with Bond.


  • Camera angles - Bad. I think this is the first Bond movie this Director (Marc Forster) has ever directed. Movies which he previously directed were quite well done, such as Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction, but I think this is a new genre for him. The car chase scene at the beginning was too fast and extremely close. I understand that it may be difficult to have long shots of car chase scenes in a tunnel but once the cars were outside the same super-fast and close angles were used. I know that fast and close angles intensifies the action atmosphere but what happens in Quantum of Solace is that it overdoes it and becomes uncomfortable. Not all the angles were bad. One of the best was the rooftop chase and where Bond and the other guy jumped through a glass ceiling and onto the construction platforms.


  • Setting - Nicely presented environment. The scene when Bond chased the other guy and fell through the glass ceiling and onto the construction platforms was very interesting. The suspended pulled and the mid-air fights were very nice.


  • Length - The length was fairly short for a Bond movie. I was expecting something around 2hr.


  • Layout - The layout of the movie was not that good since after the intense car chase at the beginning the action was uneven. The movie started off on a high at the beginning then there was the rooftop chase, but after that I looked at my watch and realised there was only ~20minutes left and hardly anything significant has happened.


  • Bond Stereotype - Bond didn't seem to say the "My name is Bond. James Bond." quote. Bond didn't sleep with Camille (Olga Kurylenko) in the end. Usually, if there are two girls and Bond sleeps with one of them at around the middle of the movie, that girl dies and at the ending of the movie Bond sleeps with the second girl. Its just an ongoing pattern throughout the ~20 Bond movies. Bond's drink, "Martini, shaken not stirred." was not used. Instead, the bartender explained what was in the drink like "3 measures of Gordon's Gin, 1 of Vodka, 1/2 measure of Konokunai which is not Vermouth shaken well until it is ice cold and then served with a large thin slice of lemon peel..". The bartender could have simply said at the end that it is a Martini. There isn't any introduction of any new gadgets, probably this is because it continues from Casino Royale. Plus Quantum of Solace is slanted towards a personal attack rather than a British Secret Service assignment. I don't know if any of these are absent because it was the way the story was written from the start by Ian Fleming.


Overall, Quantum of Solace has many elements that fit a Bond film but could have done much better.
6/10
The weakest of five movies with best Bond - Graig
dmitryaltman2-64-89277617 November 2021
It all started with the dreadful theme song for this movie. It's just that bad. The plot is weak and on top of that the lack of chemistry between Graig and Kurilenko's characters shows. Execution is good, plenty of action, but again pale in comparison with other installments.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Did not like it from the beginning
SafReviews22 October 2021
It's a good thing that this movie is only 106 minutes long because it wasn't that good. I just found it hard to be interested in the story as it just felt like a cliched action movie plot. I don't know if it was just me, but I also didn't like the action scenes beacuse they felt too rushed and I could just about make out was happening, especially the scene at the start of the movie. I've seen way too many action movies and this one is below average; it doesn't have anything I've not seen before.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Some Flaws Bt Many + points
anupviswanath9 November 2008
I didn't think it lacked much story,as far as my knowledge goes i think this was 1 fantastic movie..............although it had action that was packed More than needed and JAMES BOND instead of 1 man show was shown as a SUPERHUMAN...........i meant 2 many action sequence and he doesn't have much noticeable injury...................Bt as a whole it went with the same pace and followed the track of Casino Royale.............. Also let me add that the intro 4 bond was not actually good,it could have started from the ending 2 minutes of Casino Royale or a flashback from the ending 2 min of Quantam of Solace........... Bt I liked the way the movie Carry's the character..............
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Great action movie, horrible, terrible and awful James Bond movie.
nikkocaplin27 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First of all.

The cars. The first car was an awesome Austin Martin which had bulletproof glasses. Nothing else. Why leave out the rockets, machine guns and missiles? I don't know, and I am starting to loose interest. The second car was some random car, and so was the third.

Second.

The story. The story was better than Casino Royale, but was more like a random action movie story.

Third.

Where is the "Bond, James Bond" line? What James Bond movie does not have this line?

Fourth.

Where was Q? Why do they hate Q?

Fifth.

James Bond. Daniel Craig is a great and brilliant actor, but an awful James Bond. Bring back Pierce Brosnan.

Sixth.

The filming. The camera work was not good at all. It reminded me of a school project. And what's with the CG? I know the CG scenes are dangerous to film in real life, but If you need CG, at least make it better! I thought for a second it was a game.

As an action movie, I give it 8/10. As a James Bond movie, I give it 1/10.

This movie would be brilliant if they had changed the title something different than James Bond, and changed the names.
6/10
Do we want a return to the dark ages?
vinnieboards14 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have only just watched the Quantum of Solace. I read much of the pre-release reviews and was suitably put off.

Much of the review comments were fair - the messy and lacklustre plot, the absence of a credible villain and Daniel Craig and Judi Dench quite rightly, rescuing the film from turkey status.

What is a alarming and concerning is the mainly stateside perspective that the film needs to have its fair share of stupid, inane one liners and crass character names. What next? - a Russian agent called Olga Getyapantsov? Onatop was bad enough!! And what new implausible gadgets do we want to see? A BMW that doubles up as a tank?

The franchise should be applauded for going down a grittier more realistic track. Most Bond fans will gratefully acknowledge the early performances by Sean Connery, especially From Russia with Love with the cat 'n mouse encounter with Robert Shaw on the train. Riveting stuff. The only real technology on offer was a trick lock in a briefcase.

Roger Moore then dumbed down the Bond legend so much that it became farcical. Pierce Brosnan did well to revive Bond's fortunes but there was still that tendency for shocking puns and gimmicks which reduced the films credibility and impact. For this reason, Casino Royale was a much awaited triumph.

So what was disappointing about QOS?

1. Editing - The fast, frenetic action scenes (ala Jason Bourne) have no depth of scale. They are incredibly difficult to watch. There are great stunts in QOS but their impact is lost in the jumpy nature of the camera work. Whilst this style of filming may be 'in' is it really Bond? I think not. A great example - the car crash in Casino Royale where the Aston catapults off the road. Spectacular and beautifully filmed. Was there anything as good in QOS? For all the hard work you are never left with that feeling of awe and splendour.

2. Revenge Plot - Great idea with Bond as the tormented soul but the main protagonist is not actually our French Save the Planet CEO but Mr White and this vendetta was never resolved (although it might be in the next film). Much more could have been made of the CIA and even MI6 hunting Bond down as a rogue agent. A trick very much missed.

3. Villainous Organisation - Who are they - they're everywhere but we have no idea who they are. And what are they after? Cornering the world's oil market? Nope - just depriving some Bolivians of their water supply. Hardly Spectre or Smirsh is it?

4. Direction & Script - Marc Foster's direction doesn't cut it. The storytelling aspect of the film is badly handled, the script is weak and resorts to certain set pieces which merely attempt to paper over the cracks.

5. Soundtrack - Dreadful!

6. Bolivain Dictator Sub-Plot - pretty pointless in the scheme of things.

7. Film Length The shortest Bond film of all. Like the producers ran out of ideas.

In Conclusion: Not the worst by any means. But not nearly the best. Craig is a great Bond, and critics acknowledge this. What I hope for is that the creators keep their nerve and continue with this more realistic approach. If the franchise rolls back into more double-entendres, suggestive character names and Bond bedding any bird that crosses his path, then the whole premise of a top secret agent with a licence to kill will be lost.

The days of Pussy Galore are long gone. The days of James Bond acting only with his eyebrows are long gone. The days of a secret agent approaching pensionable age sexually encountering young model type lasses are long gone.

Making a James Bond film as a realistic, tense, action packed, edge of your seat thriller is now the order of the day. Casino Royale reinvented Bond, QOS has unfortunately tarnished its image once more. Let us hope that it is merely a blip and there are much better things to come.
7/10
A Bond film that falls short of "Casino Royale" greatness.
tccandler14 November 2008
Let me get the basics out of the way...

Great title. Dreadful opening theme song. Boring opening credit sequence. Solid action scenes. Gorgeous Bond girls. Hardly any humor. No steamy love scenes. Unfocused plot.

I am still recommending this Bond entry, despite some significant negatives, predominantly because of the strength of Daniel Craig as the "new" 007. He demands to be considered a more three-dimensional and thoughtful Bond... a man whose actions and emotions have weight and consequences. This re-invention bids a temporary adieu to the overt sexual innuendos and comical gadgetry of the Connery, Moore, Brosnan era (I omit the Dalton era for obvious reasons). "Quantum of Solace" may not be as fun as many of the previous twenty movies... Rather, it replaces the silliness with regret, pain and vengeance. That may or may not be your deep champagne goblet of Vesper Martini.

Picking up just a few minutes after "Casino Royale" ends, this flick is essentially a sequel. Bond is simultaneously angry and mourning over the loss of his beloved Vesper Lynd... and he wants answers.

The film thrusts us into motion with an insane car chase in the curvy hills of the Italian countryside. Once at the safe-house, Bond and M interrogate Mr. White -- the man whom James Bond introduces himself to in the final moments of "Casino Royale". However, things do not go as planned when a rogue MI6 agent helps Mr. White escape.

The hunt is on as 007 traverses the globe in search of Dominic Greene, the head of an ultra-secretive organization that goes by the name "Quantum". They are in the business of destabilizing governments and installing new leadership who will be more beneficial to their interests. Their current target is Bolivia.

Along the way, Bond is naturally thrust into the paths of some gorgeous women. One is Camille (Kurylenko), a woman with her own agenda which involves a personal relationship with Dominic Greene. The other is Agent Fields (Arterton), an MI6 employee who is sent to retrieve Bond after he "goes rogue".

The plot yanks us all over the place before finally settling in South America, where we figure out the true motivations behind Greene and Quantum (the modern version of Spectre).

I think of this film as a transition piece. "Casino Royale" was our first introduction to James Bond - his first assignment, first love, first loss. "Quantum of Solace" is a somber revenge flick that, by its very nature, has to eschew all the typical humor and wink-wink sexuality. The next film may have us return to the Connery style Bond, who uses women without conscience and thwarts evil with nonchalance. However, he had to go through this movie to find a "Quantum of Solace" first. This film was a necessary step in the evolution of Bond.

I have already professed my glee over the selection of Daniel Craig as 007. He gets it all right. I could not be happier with the choice. I must confess that I am tired of Judi Dench in the role of M. Been there, done that. The role needs to be recast somehow.

I would like to see the gadgets return. We had a nice glimpse of an awesome computer interface in "QoS"... but the requisite gadget scene was always a fun moment to anticipate.

Kurylenko and Arterton are undeniably pristine as the beautiful Bond Girls here. Unfortunately, they aren't given enough to do. I would have loved to have had them more involved. Kurylenko is clearly blessed with star quality... She is stunning. Arterton reminds me a little of Rosamund Pike or Keira Knightley -- She is elegant and quintessentially English. I think she has a great career in front of her.

However, the flaws in this film lay squarely at the feet of director, Marc Forster. The plot is unfocused... never letting us settle in one place for long enough to gather our thoughts. The choice of opening song and credit sequence are atrocious. He should be fleeced for ruining those most cherished parts of the Bond experience. And although the action scenes were ambitious and packed with energy, I felt that he fell back on the tired techniques of quick cuts and blurred speed to distract us from the logistics of the sequences. To me, this signifies a lack of confidence and a lack of talent.

Nevertheless, I still manage to recommend "QoS' despite it falling far short of its prequel. Not only was "Casino Royale" the best Bond film ever made... It was one of the best films of 2006 -- it is a very rare feat for an out and out action film to land in one of my Top 10 Lists. This 2008 effort pales in comparison. Is that unfair? Perhaps. "Quantum of Solace" is a good action film and nothing more.

Written by TC Candler
6/10
Modicum of Solace is more like it
jb_campo19 July 2014
Quantum of Solace is an OK addition to the Bond series, though I think it restricted Daniel Craig's ability to flex much acting muscle. Maybe that was the point - nothing affects Bond, ever...?

Bond has some pretty cool chase scenes, the opening one being along the Italian coast in a two lane tunnel. That must have been a challenge to film. There's another boat chase scene which has been done before, better, and a rooftop chase scene. Well, you get the point.

Bond needs to find out what this Quantum group is and what they are after. They all use names like from Clue - Mr White, Mr Green. Mr Green is the key villain, and he's a slimy bastard if I must say so. He had some history with this film's Bond girl played by the beautiful Olga Kurylenko. She has revenge on her mind, as does Bond because of Quantum having led to the death of Bond's gal pal, Vesper, from a previous movie.

M, still played by Judi Dench, turns in her usual stoic, strong performance. She's a terrific actress in everything she does. Otherwise, Bond flies around the world, fights bad guys, digs to the truth, and hits pay dirt. The one thing I liked best about Quantum was the big fight scene at the end. Typically there are monstrous buildings with huge things, and this time, well, it is a huge building, but being a hotel makes it more manageable. I could related to stairs falling and windows getting blown out. It was a very well done final fight scene that satisfies.

In the end, Bond finds out what he needs to about Vesper, and declares he's ready for more, which of course, led to Skyfall.

I think Daniel Craig was OK, but again, he was pretty restricted. I think we saw a much wider Bond character in Skyfall, which is why I'd highly recommend Skyfall, while Quantum you can put off to second or third choice. Enjoy.
3/10
What just happened?
Famas_GunSlinger15 February 2019
I'm being rather generous with three stars here. The film is the weakest of all the bond films with Daniel Craig. I actually got a headache watching the film. The first car chase scene is incomprehensible, it lacks any sort of sense of direction and I was completely lost. You get a sense of a car chase, but you in no way actually see a car chase. The plot is also a jumbled mess. I would completely skip this bond movie if possible and just go straight to Skyfall which is ten times better.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Strange title, strong action
cpbadgeman17 November 2008
Daniel Craig's second outing as Agent 007 stays very loyal to the traditions for his tenure in the role that were established in "Casino Royale". Once again there are very few gadgets, very minimal humor, and a plot line that is (somewhat) more reality-based than has been the norm for the Bond franchise. The plot centers on Bond's efforts to avenge the death of his love interest in "Casino", Vesper Lynd. This quest leads him to clash with a sinister philanthropist who wants to topple the Bolivian government, and also to ally himself with the beautiful Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who is seeking some vengeance of her own.

Once again Craig exudes a winning combination of subtle vulnerability, smooth charm, and overt toughness. His character's demeanor is closer to that of the suave-but-thuggish operator described in the original novels. The action scenes are skilfully executed and there are a number of neatly twisted references to previous films in the Bond canon.

Overall there is little to quibble with in this latest entry in a now decades-old franchise. However, at least one cool gadget (cellphones don't count!) would have gone a long way. In addition, a little more overt humor would have been appreciated and the title (which makes more sense as the plot unfolds) quite frankly sounds more like the tagline for a spa. All that having been said, "Quantum of Solace" is good value for money and a fun night out.
9/10
Best Bond Film
JamesIan20213 May 2015
Continuing straight on from the moment Bond shoots Mr. White in the leg and reveals his identity, Quantum Of Solace perfectly continues from Casino Royale delivering action by the tonne and closing off the answers from Craig's first 007 outing. With Vesper dead and the only lead escaped, Bond must track down and eliminate the mysterious Quantum organisation that is after the world's most precious resource, whilst teaming up with the feisty Camille who has an agenda of her own. Marc Forster's direction is excellent, who would've thought that fast cut action sequences would suit a Bond movie? Well they certainly do, the opening is one of the most fast and gripping car chases I've ever seen, as Bond evades gunmen along Lake Garda in Italy. Daniel Craig gives his best performance as Bond, this time more of a renegade and a loose cannon, and I like that, it provides 'M' with a mission of her own trying to control her own agent, and Judi Dench is on fine form yet again. Olga Kurylenko is by far the finest Bond girl since Ursula Andress, starring as Camille Montes who joins up with Bond going after the ruthless Dominic Greene played by Mathieu Amalric whose suitably sinister performances stirs suspicion.

Would I watch it again? Without a doubt, this addition remains in my top five Bond movies alongside From Russia With Love, A View To A Kill, For Your Eyes Only and Goldeneye thanks to great storytelling, knockout action, beautiful cinematography and all pitch perfect performances and a fitting soundtrack.
6/10
British Bourne.
alexbrogan002 November 2021
I'll try not to compare it to Casino Royale. That's like comparing Iron Man 2 to the first Iron Man. But in traditional sequel fashion it doesn't deliver as much as I hoped.

But this movie had the worst action, to the point of where I was nauseous from the amounts of shaky cam, or disoriented from the 1 million cuts per scene. Terrible editing. Felt like the same editors from The Bourne Supremacy.

Daniel Craig continues to be great. And the new cast additions are always welcome. But I had a bit of trouble understanding why our main antagonist was even an antagonist. No sympathy for his character or motivations, but he was not menacing in any way, and likely could have been cast better.

I was also surprised the climax was even happening. Felt small in scope. I thought it was just another action set piece leading to the final fight. Little did I know I was watching the final showdown. Bigger isn't always better, but this didn't feel like a climactic ending.

I was highly intrigued by the discovery and mystery of the society of Quantum, but it didn't go as far down the rabbit hole as I wanted so I left feeling that plot line was unfinished and lackluster.

What I feel this movie missed the most was dramatic tension. The anxiety and tenseness you get from staring down your enemy and looking for his tell during a high stakes poker game is much entertaining and riveting than a brief hand to hand fight with a wimpy antagonist.

This movie was sprinkled with amazing scenes, great acting, good dialogue, and fun ideas. But I feel they missed the mark that the first one hit so perfectly.
8/10
A worthy sequel, but not without it's faults... Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I only saw this a few weeks ago when i bought the DVD on impulse. It's taken me a while mainly because I thought there was no way it could match the standard set by "Casino Royale". Royale was a brilliant thriller, elegant, intelligent and tense with a serious tone matched only by the first two Connery films and Tim Dalton's stint. This wasn't camp and, I'll say it, rubbish Bond of the Moore years (and *shudder* Die Another Day) this was Bond of the novels, cynical, brutal and perhaps a touch Sociopathic, while Eva Green was as intelligent as she was stunning, offering a nice change to the usual airhead that Bond shags and leaves.

Now I'll be honest, "Quantum" isn't as good as Royale (and, lets get this out the way, has the worst title of any film I can think of) but that isn't so important as it is a very different type of film, shifting the focus from character and psychological suspense to balls out action and paranoia. In some ways, it is a return to the excesses of old Bond, with big set pieces, millionaire villains (I swear at one point someone says "One Billion Dollars!!!") and incomprehensible global conspiracies, though anchoring the film is a more realistic tone of Bond's heartbreak and desire for revenge over the death of Vespa. Like Connery at the start of "Diamonds Are Forever" when he's tracking Blofeld for killing Tracy, Bond is royally brassed off and wants some answers dammit.

The main strengths of the film lie in its cinematography, a searing visual style that is both gritty and dirty while highlighting spectacular action (explosions, car crashes etc), while the direction and script are incredibly kinetic. This is a focused and fast moving Juggernaut of a film with Bond on the warpath as he unleashes hell on those who killed Vespa and, at the start of the film, attempt to assassinate M.

The problem is, its a little too focused. It is very successful in giving us a better sense of Bond as a character and his complex, at times amoral approach to life, but this comes at a heavy cost to the plot and the other characters; which is a real shame as there is a sense of a genuine attempt by the writers to deal with complex themes such as the moral ambiguity of diplomacy and the politicisation of the intelligence services in the 21t Century.

However, the way this is done, with Bond going rogue from MI6 to avoid diplomatic problems, is basically the same as the plot of the (underrated) Dalton film "License to Kill". Actually, its basically a carbon copy, right down to the revenge element and the South American baddies posing as philanthropists. The only difference is an attempt to introduce more politics, but the result is just baffling as the wide ranging plot is neither explored or explained adequately.

I mean, as far as I can tell, the story is this: A French billionaire philanthropist is orchestrating a military coup in Bolivia, while arranging to secretly gain control of Bolivia's water supply, for some reason. What this reason is is never really explained. Or indeed what the Quantum organisation is, what its aims are etc. It's all just a bit of a mess.

The characters are one dimensional. The villain, Dominic Green, is a stereotypical slimy Frenchman, the military dictator could have walked in out of a Tintin comic and poor Olga Kurylenko is given little to do except pout. Yes, she's absolutely gorgeous, but she's given so little personality and so little to do by the writers (except be angry and vengeful) that she is relegated just to the role of Bond's sidekick.

Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), Bond's other conquest in the movie, is also a pretty ghastly cliché of a character, reminding me of Caroline in Goldeneye, and her death, which should be the emotional keystone of the whole piece as Bond realises that he can't get close to anyone without hurting them, is just glossed over, then forgotten about.

This is partially the fault of Marc Foster, the director, who understates the plot to the point where we just don't care. Why the studio didn't ask Martin Campbell, director of "Casino Royale" and the excellent "Goldeneye" again, is beyond me. After all, he also directed "Edge of Darkness" a TV environmental conspiracy thriller which would have made him perfect to deal with Quantum's Byzantine plot.

Now, don't get me wrong, the film looks great, is very entertaining, and has some great set pieces (the exploding hotel at the end is the standout). But it lacks both the brains and the plotting of it's predecessor and, while still better than the majority of Bond films, feels like a relapse into previous bad habits.
5/10
Could have been better, Very poor filming of the action sequences
staticcharges15 November 2008
I was so disappointed that the actions scene where so poorly filmed to almost be called amateur (Like my own home video attempts). There where some great action in the movie but you wont see it on film, so sad. I doubt I will watch this film ever again, unlike Casino Royal which I can watch over and over. I don't think there is any part of the movie where the camera is not moving and in action scenes it is ridiculous choppy and shaky that you have no real feel if there is action or if they are just shaking the camera so they did not have to do stunts. The rest of the movie is good, not much traditional Bond action, but good anyway. I think they had the wrong people create and produce this Bond movie, but over all a decent action movie that I enjoyed seeing...Once.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Quantum of Solace
TaladarkieJJ17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to see QOS today and gotta tell ya I wasn't really disappointed, then again, I didn't have very high expectations for this movie. I had been reading some reviews so I just went to see QOS expecting an action movie and nothing more than that..

The action scenes were OK I guess, though quite messy at times & very short which made it hard to follow. I would have loved for them to be longer than just a few miserable seconds. It would have been a huge improvement. This Bond movie has a lot in common with the Bourne franchise, which is not a good thing cause it's Bond and not Bourne. But many before me have already said that so i'll stop here.

I really missed all the classic Bond elements like his famous introduction 'Bond. James Bond.' and him ordering his favorite drink 'Vodka-Martini. Shaken, not stirred.' & of course dear old Q and his smart, cool, sometimes silly but very efficient gadgets. I can understand that they want to boost up the franchise, using a different approach but please insert at least one Classic, typical Bond element in future movies. Bond movies have been around for - how long? Nearly 40 years I think, it's not right to just throw everything that made Bond.. well Bond.. overboard.

And I have to agree with the people who found the villain not as bad as supposed to be in a Bond movie, cause he really wasn't that much of a villain. He was pretty lame. I think even I could have beaten the crap out of him without having to be a Secret Agent. Where have all those baddies gone that strife for World Domination? However, one of the scenes that shocked me the most, was the one where his friend Mathis - after being locked up in the trunk of Bond's car - gets shot and then dies in Bond's arms in the middle of the street. Bond seems a bit emotional then, but after the guy's dead he just dumps the body in a huge container full of garbage.. What the? M said 'One must be a pretty cold hearted bastard if he didn't revenge the death of the ones he loved.' Well, the way he just rid himself of his friend's dead body sure was cold hearted. 'He doesn't care..' Right. Even if he didn't, it doesn't mean you actually have to go and do something so cold and heartless like you don't give a damn.

And what originality. Not only were they mimicking the Bourne franchise for a large part of the movie, they also had to insert a scene similar to the Famous scene from 'Goldfinger' with the dead girl painted in Gold, only now Miss Fields was covered in oil. The movie really could have done without but it seems they just had to add it. Why? is beyond me. Speaking of Bondgirls, I didn't see the need for a character like Miss Fields. She was supposed to bring Bond back, instead she ends up in his bed and gets herself killed afterwards. Camille, I liked.

Some of you compare this movie to 'Licence to Kill', a modern day version. I thought that LTK had a bit more humor and that Dalton's Bond wasn't such a cold hearted & ruthless killer like Craig's Bond in QOS. (I like Dalton more than Craig too..) But okay, yes, there are similarities but I like LTK a lot more than QOS. Same goes for the Soundtrack, though I got used to the unusual song of Keys & White. I guess it has grown on me.

So, overall, I quite liked it for an action flick but it's definitely not a Bond movie in my opinion. For that, I give it a 5/10.
4/10
Casino Royale brings Bond back in a huge way. Then this movie comes along.
nickkulstadis12 March 2021
The worst of the Daniel Craig Bond movies. A script deficient, pretentiously over produced, uninspired follow up to Casino Royale. Daniel Craig practically keeps this movie afloat. It's only worth watching for the Craig character arc. The writing is so poor here you'd swear it's a post Goldeneye Pierce Brosnan Bond movie except with a more dark tone. Best to follow Casino Royale with it, then watch Skyfall afterward.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Editied Way Way too much !!!!!
pritish-sai8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie will prove one tremendous rule. A good story is one thing. Executing it is something completely different. Martin Campbell who is a seasoned filmmaker did a wonderful job on bringing out the darker side of bond but with the same flair and enthusiasm that made Casino Royale a 'professional'and entertaining thrillfest.

Sadly what made the first movie great is missing excluding Daniel Craig's highly commedable performance. Those who think that Sean-Connery is the best in the bond business...you'll be reassured that its still true. But Craig is second best only to Connery and this film proves it. However the same cannot be said for the other actors. Some such as Judi Dench as 'M' and Giancarlo Giannini as Rene Mathias bring back some of the Casino Royale Charm . But addtions such as the new bond leading lady Olga Kurylenko and the new villain 'Dominic Greene' will not satisfy bond fans - especially those who are fans of classic bond villains such as Jaws ,Goldfinger and even The predecessor's Le Chiffre.

The story (something I will not divulge) is innovative but at the same time the way the plot thickens- it does not make the audience eager to see what happens. It is quite possible that using the same story director Marc Forster could have brought in more suspense. The trailer for example really made all of us (me included) eager to see the movie but the same level of anticipation is not brought out when watching the movie itself.

Now lets move on to the final leg and the only thing that feel was Quantum's MAJOR letdown. The Editing. I'm sure most of you who are eager to watch the movie are anticipating the death-defying ,nerve wrecking and heart stopping stunts that await you. You won't be disappointed. Death was defied. Nerves were wrecked but at what cost ? The Editing. The stunts were eagerly shown ..but not in the way you expect it. You have a whole stack of camera angles squeezed into one minute..and the includes the foot chases, the car chases ,the boat chases ,the plane chases...I could on and on.........And I will. Those who suffer from headaches.Be careful. The flair of the stunts of the predecessor is lost just because of the editing although some were taken at excellent angles with minimal changes (whew). The problem here is that its not easy to squeeze every aspect that makes a movie unique into 2 hours. But the director did it anyway.

In conclusion I would highly recommend to this bond and non-bond fans alike only for the reason that Casino Royale was incomplete.However don't go with you adrenaline pumped up into the theater.But still Daniel Craig is the best choice for this generation's Bond and I'm sure that he will be back for a lot more sequels.. I'm waiting for that.
7/10
Finding Solace In Action!
SandeepLoyalka10 November 2008
The first direct sequel ever in the Bond franchise, Quantum Of Solace continues in story, tone & character from where its illustrious predecessor, Casino Royale left off. The complicated plot follows Bond trying to uncover the mystery behind the death of Vesper, the woman he loved & lost, while at the same time attempting to thwart the nefarious ambitions of chief baddie Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). In this mix is the sensual Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman with her own agenda. The stunt work is flawless and the action sequences put breathless audiences practically in the middle of the action! For this, the film has to be commended. The negatives crop up due to the often difficult-to-follow storyline and the distinct feeling that the movie seems a bit episodic - a part of a whole & not really a stand-alone product. Also, though I fully appreciate the tonal shift to a grittier, dirtier & more real Bond, the sense of fun that I feel was such an essential part of the series, is now sadly missing. But that apart, most Bond fans are more than likely to find this installment quite satisfying and the promise in the end-credits that 'James Bond will return' already looks a salivating prospect!
7/10
Look beyond Casino Royale, and enjoy this for what it is!
the_rattlesnake2531 October 2008
The problem with 'Quantum of Solace' was always the expectation the fantastic series re-boot 'Casino Royale' bestowed upon the Bond faction, however if you manage to avoid trying to place both films side-by-side, then you'll enjoy 'QoS' a lot more for what it is, a decent romp of an action-flick that deserves to be in any Bond aficionados collection.

'QoS' continues literally straight on from the end of 'Casino Royale' as Bond is on a mission for vengeance, and we are thrust straight into the action from the very beginning with a stunning car chase, the pace is set. From then on, we follow Bond across the globe as he jumps from country to country trying to find out just what the 'organisation' is and what they're up to while managing to destroy everything in his past(oh and there's a little residing hatred from the death of Vesper).

Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko both deliver strong performances as two characters drawn together over the notion of retribution and Mathieu Amalric is surprisingly chilling as the humanised antagonist in a universe usually populated by the slightly exuberant villain. And with a smart script to-boot, one of 'QoS' strongest area's is also it's weakest. While the high octane action is fast, violent and frenetic, it is also incredibly disjointed by Forster's use of quick editing and his inability to judge what shots create thrill-seeking enjoyment and others that just cause confusion in the way that you don't know what you've just seen.

With all being said, I enjoyed 'Quantum of Solace', it was a decent action flick that ticked most of the conceptual boxes on what a Bond film should contain.
8/10
Brilliant Bond but for one point.
rustiswordz31 October 2008
OK Lets make the following clear:

If you expect Moneypenny, glib one liners, Q and stupid gadgets turn away now, cos there isn't any. What there is, is better than that. Excellent acting, breathtaking locations, clever script/story and the best Bond in years. Craig is better every time. A superb actor who's portrayal of Bond is inch perfect. He's a troubled man, in a turbulent world where allies become enemies and vice-versa. The world has changed and so has this Bond to meet it. He's professional, ruthless and as cold as Craig's ice-blue eyes. He's a Bond of the 21'st Century. I want more!

OK now for my one BIG gripe. The editing was terrible, i mean terrible. The action sequences were like machine gun rapid to the point where I had trouble keeping up with the action, it was so fast. TOO fast. The editing was trying to out Bourne the Bourne films, didn't quite work. I wasn't alone in that train of thought either. As I left the cinema, several other expressed similar reservations.

However despite that, its a new Bond, in a new world.
7/10
A Quantum drop in quality
rparham3 December 2008
Following the successful "reboot" of the James Bond franchise with 2006's Casino Royale, Daniel Craig has returned to the role of Bond with the follow-up, Quantum of Solace. For everyone salivating over a second entry of the new, stripped down Bond film series, Quantum of Solace may prove to be a bit of a letdown. While hardly a poor entry in the Bond oeuvre, it is a significant step down from Casino Royale, with a bit too much emphasis on action and not enough on character.

Picking up almost immediately from where Casino Royale left off, Bond has captured Mr. White (Jesper Christiansen) and brought him in for questioning by Bond's superior, M (Judi Dench, once again). What Bond and M quickly discover is that the organization that White works for, known as Quantum, has far ranging influence and are using their powers to topple governments in order to gain a foothold wherever they deem financial lucrative for them.

Bond follows clues that lead him to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a key player in Quantum, who is helping to destabilize the government of Boliva in order to install a dictator, General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), to allow them to control a valuable natural resource. Accompanying Bond on his mission is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who has a personal score to settle with Medrano, while Bond is also set on revenge for the death of his love from Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd.

Quantum of Solace, much like Casino Royale, has thrown many James Bond staples to the wind: gone is the utterance of "Bond, James Bond", absent are the goofy gadgets, and Bond's sex drive has been ratcheted down significantly (he beds a mere single woman in the film). This is a Bond film more in the mold of the recent Bourne series, not taking a lot of down time from action to let the narrative breathe. This proves to be unfortunate, as one of the things that distinguished Casino Royale was the depth it devoted to character development over just action sequences. Quantum of Solace is almost wall to wall action sequences, with a snippet of dialogue here and there, and only lip service paid to Bond's search for vengeance for the death of Vesper.

One of the film's other key flaws is the over-edited action sequences. Director Marc Forster and editors Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson have taken a page from the Michael Bay book of film-making and made sure to keep the cuts fast and furious, reducing some of the action sequences to barely decipherable collages of random objects in motion. If action is your main focus, at least make it coherent.

Daniel Craig proves once again to be a good choice for the role, with plenty of physical appeal and a nice sense of confidence in the role. Mathieu Amalric is something of a mixed bag as villain Dominic Greene, not up to par with many of the more flamboyant Bond villains, but still menacing and creepy at times. Olga Kurylenko is attractive and has a bit more substance to her than many Bond girls, proving to be a bit more of a sidekick than love interest.

Overall, Quantum of Solace is something of a minor disappointment, coming on the heels of the very strong Casino Royale. But compared with many of the outlandish entries in the years of Roger Moore, it would be difficult to identify it as a poor entry in the franchise. We can only hope that the next entry rides a little closer to Casino Royale's high mark.
5/10
genre expectations: action
10sion6 April 2020
Anticipation 1 Conflict 0 Engagement 1 Entertainment 2 Production 1 Total 5
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pathetic, wimpish .... not a bond flick
sporadic-adi14 November 2008
what is it with making these heroes from our childhood into "real" people.... dammit, let them be. QoS is ridiculous, it is not a bond movie at all. The opening song sounds like a couple of teenagers singing in a karaoke bar, the worst one in the world.

the story, is overcomplicated and stop-start there is no moneypenny, no Q, no gadgets, no slick cars that shoot missiles, no dry-pun lines .... nothing

WTF

I never ever post comments, this movie forced me too ... skip this disgusting movie

we want our Bond back ,,, not this stupid "real, bleeding" hero
20 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Are you Mr Bourne or Mr Bond?
nobanenogain5 November 2008
Following up to Casino Royale was an unenviable task, given that reboot of the Bond franchise proved so entertaining it ranks in the top 3 Bond films made, thus it comes as no surprise that despite its strengths, Quantum of Solace is a multi-flawed, high octane action picture that pales in comparison to its predecessor. My first qualm over how it would fare was upon the realisation of the running time, clocking in at 106 minutes it is half an hour shorter than Casino Royale, and why it is so short is mysterious, for the running time contributes to the muddled plot of QOS. Twenty minutes more at least would not have gone amiss, instead action (some just for the hell of it) is crammed into relatively little time, the plot taking a back seat. It is quite obvious that the beleaguered script (completed just before the writers' strike) underwent on set re- writes, and it shows. Development and purpose of characters such as Felix Leiter or Dominic Greene don't even take a back seat, instead they are replaced in favour of the superfluous (Gemma Arterton's Fields maybe a homage to the 60's Bond girl, but she could have been given additional screen time) and the lack of purpose (Bond's fight with Mr Slate in Haiti comes and goes at such a break neck pace one can't dwell on just why that all happened). Mark Forster, while a cracking director who has revelled in exploring the relationships of his central characters doesn't deal with balancing character dialogue with the action set- pieces, though the film does succeed in painting 007 in a gloomier light following on from Vesper's death. However Greene and Bond girl Camille have the potential to be far more absorbing characters yet they're severely restricted and shall not be as memorable as they could and should have been. Despite the obvious refusal to accept it on the filmmakers' behalf, Bond is becoming more like Bourne, from the absence of the gun barrel at the beginning of the film to the swift fight scenes that see Bond use objects to attack his opponent in moments of improvisation to the constant globe trotting to the rooftop leaping sequences. It is entertaining fare but James is in danger of alienating his loyal following, a fight sequence a la that of Connery and Shaw in From Russia With Love or Brosnan and Bean in Goldeneye would be better suited. Granted, this Bond is a working process, Craig's Bond is still working his way to familiarity with the audience, so it will be no surprise that the producers will most probably bring back Moneypenny and Q come Bond 23 given the manner in which the film ended. Like Brosnan, Craig has experienced an excellent debut followed by a largely mindless action-oriented film that struggles to engage you or feel for any of the characters throughout the duration. And it is Craig, depicting a darker and more dangerous Bond, willingly putting his neck as well as his Tom Ford tailoring on the line, who should take credit for avoiding a disaster.
7/10
Quantum of Solace had nothing original
xoimiox15 November 2008
EON rebooted the series to refine the already perfect franchise and maybe attract some new audience. But we already had Jack Bauer (24) and Jason Bourne to satisfy the violent taste of the new generation.

Casino Royale was acceptable since it was a work of Ian Fleming's; but Quantum of Solace had nothing new. As the trailer suggests, James Bond goes rogue; that's the plot of Licence to Kill and the first half of Die Another Day. In QoS, there is a dead oily body lying on bed; we saw a golden one in Goldfinger. QUANTUM is introduced as an evil organization, to fill the role of SPECTRE and SMERSH. The boat chase ends with the same theme that was played in From Russia With Love at the end of the chase. Camile drives an old Volks beetle, so did Melina Havelock in For Your Eyes Only.

They also hired Dan Bradley as the second unit director to copy some Bourne moves like some exact hand to hand combat or Escrima fighting scenes.

Now let's get to Marc Forster and his artistic shots: after the beginning credits we see dancing of colors (first I thought those were some kites from The Kite Runner), then an old lady drops some grapes and we see the fall in slow motion or James Bond runs from bad guys while Tosca opera is playing (not in the background, instead James bond is in background). Well who needs this much metaphor in a Bond movie??

With all those things said, I give 7 out of 10 to this movie. I watched it at midnight (the first screening of the movie) and I stood an hour in line and I don't regret it because QoS was an entertaining action movie.

I know the producers will stick to this new romantic violent Bourne version of Bond. But I really miss the cool and suave secret agent who "would never miss".
7/10
Quantum of Solace: Not as bad as you remember.
georgetay-9850711 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Following up the incredible Casino Royale was an almost impossible task, and the writers strike didn't help this film's chances. And while this film doesn't even come close to the quality of Casino Royale, it is a decent companion piece that rounds off the story started in the previous film nicely.

While the film's action isn't bad, it's nothing special other than an early chase scene that's pretty fun. The film's cinematography is decent but once again nothing overly amazing.

Daniel Craig is once again excellent as James Bond. He's detached, vicious, uncontrollable and bent on vengeance.

Olga Kurylenko is great as Camille. Another great Bond girl who does more than just stand there looking pretty. She's dead set on revenge so her path and Bond's intertwine. Due to their focus on the task at hand, they don't really develop a romantic relationship. This makes their relationship unique compared to the other Bond girls.

The returning cast members are good but under-utilised. Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene is good with what he's given but he is unfortunately not given very much and therefore becomes a very forgettable villain. Bond leaving Greene in the desert with the oil can was awesome though.

The opening credits are not very notable and the song "Another Way To Die" by Alicia Keys & John White is pretty bad to be honest.

Overall I think Quantum of Solace is more than the sum of its parts. I found it quite enjoyable on a rewatch, especially when watching it right after Casino Royale. Surprisingly on rewatching the Craig films, this is my second favourite. It's a great companion piece that completes Bond's journey into 007.
8/10
Like the new Bond!
shamsee22 November 2008
Daniel Craig Rocks! I assume next movie would be a bit lighter and happier since he got his revenge for losing the woman he loved! I like the lack of emphasis on gadgets! Bond has actually become human! Realism Rocks! The villains are becoming even bigger losers and less and less memorable. They need to create a bit stronger role for them.

Action was fast paced and awesome! They used some background action, like horse race, combined with fight scene and went back and forth at high clip to try and create even intense action! M had the best lines! She is the one who made me laugh! One of the guys from 'Solace' that they were trying to "squeeze" the truth out of, mocks M, and says they have men everywhere.....and M's personal body guard betrays her, at that very moment. She survives. Later on, she is upset and having a meeting with Bond and says, "who uses phrases like we have men everywhere"......"florists use that line". LOL! Bond is forever!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Typically Bond
nikree14 June 2021
You get what you exactly signed up for.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Though after, John Wick, it's tough to be impressed by fight-sequences. Anyway, Bond is more of a chasing-jumping-cars guys.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mendes should have started with this one..
This movie is obviously a sequel to Casino Royal and it is supposed to deal with theme's as 'revenge' and 'forgiveness'. At the same time it is the prelude to what comes next in 'Skyfall'; a new direction in which Bond's past and personal conflicts are dealt with in a more thoroughly way. Material, actually suited for Mendes.

This movie stands out in the way action-sequences are shown, even more fast and entertaining then in Casino Royal. On the other hand there is a tormented, hungry-for-revenge and slowly-coming-to-terms kind of Bond who only could be played by Craig, who shows himself a real layered actor in this Bond movie. And the relationship with M is further deepened, which paves the way for it's conclusion in Skyfall.

But what makes this movie unfortunately 'average' is the fact that those insightful moments about Bond's catharsis, scenes where really good actors could give really good scenes, that those moments are way too short, leaving me with hunger for more and not getting it. If the director only would have been more daring...And he could. He would still have fulfilled the commercial needs, since the action-sequences are so revenge-driven kind of brutal and aggressive - they complement Bonds arch is such clever, physical way - that longer moments of reflection would have been balancing this movie perfectly.

Despite all this, i love this movie. My fantasy, knowing Casino Royal and Skyfall makes ends meet in this hopeful 'in between' episode.
9/10
well done and crafted film
focus-43 November 2008
I cannot agree with all the bad comments I have read people made earlier! Only the opening credits could have been better I agree yet the song was fantastic.

Some say, no plot, and I say subtle changes rather all at once on your nose character changes.

Some are missing the gimmicks and I say look what is happening in the background Some mourn the similarities with Bourne, and I say it's a homage and the free running an actual enhancement based on Casino Royal.

I could go on and on about it but I won't.

so go watch and see it and enjoy the ride!!
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rushed and messy, with good elements
daniellawson-14-78705727 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
POSITIVES:

1) Daniel Craig gives another brilliant performance as Bond, it's the perfect mix of cold blooded assassin and likeable gentleman - I loved his showings of friendship when talking to Mathis and Felix 2) I think the film, particularly the Opera scene, does a very good job of establishing Quantum as this wide ranging organisation and big threat 3) I like the way the film picks up directly after Casino Royale, rather than the usual Bond trope of each adventure feeling completely separate 4) Mathis' death really worked for me emotionally - a lot of the emotional elements of the film worked well for me actually, Bond's conversations with M also work well on an emotional Mother/Son level

NEGATIVES:

1) The film feels FAR too rushed and sped through, because of the writer's strike. A lot of the scenes have characters speaking at 100 miles an hour and absolutely running through exposition before we even really have a chance to understand what was being said 2) The fight scenes are really poorly shot in my opinion, the camera is far too shaky and it actually hurt my head at times to watch it 3) Camille feels like a completely unnecessary character, some of her development is good but she ultimately doesn't impact Bond's story at all - take her out and nothing would really be any different.

4) David Harbour's character is such a stereotypical American with his big moustache and thick Yankee accent, it was too over the top and annoying for me.
7/10
Martin Campbell should have directed this...
TheRealAlexYoung17 November 2008
It's hard to pick out any particular parts of the film that were terrible, but the overall feeling as the credits rolled was, well... deflation I guess. After so triumphantly resurrecting the franchise with Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace was so disappointing.

With hindsight it's easy to say that the reins shouldn't have been handed over to a director with little action experience. People accuse Paul Greengrass' Bourne films of being practically nauseous with their shaky cam and editing technique, but with those films I never struggled to follow the action, and it was never at the expense of the story. Marc Forster's direction seems to be to constantly stay a second behind the pace of the action, so much so that the eye struggles to register what exactly is taking place. For example imagine how terrible the Parkour scene early in Casino Royale would have looked with such editing. Action should be allowed to be seen, but in Quantum Of Solace it is practically claustrophobic; the cameraman stood too close to be able to scope all around it.

It's a shame Martin Campbell didn't return for this instalment. His vision and handling of Casino Royale was first rate, and it almost felt like this tale was still his to tell as seen as Quantum Of Solace was the first Bond sequel. He is clearly adept at directing action but was also very capable with subtle scenes, showing Bond as a raw, fallible human being. If nothing else, he might not have included those embarrassingly comical location titles throughout the film.

However I was on board with their portrayal of Bond. Some people lamented the fact that he didn't display his trademark quirks and lines, but when you think about it, maybe he didn't say "the name's Bond... James Bond" because in a way, he wasn't. He was betrayed and lost the woman he loved, he is virtually dead inside; his heart now cold, dispassionate. This was a deliberately gloomy chapter in the series, and if anything the rare moments of lightheartedness in the film are the ones that rang false. There can be no doubting that what drove Bond throughout his mission was to avenge the death of Vesper, and the choice to portray Bond as such was spot on in my opinion.

I hope the makers of Bond won't feel pressured to shift tactics due to this hiccup (namely the temptation to reintroduce occasional slapstick and farce). They've got the right recipe, they just chose the wrong ingredients this time out. Marc Forster was a bad choice as director, and the script (despite Wade, Purvis and Haggis' best efforts) was weak with lots of gaps and underwritten characters, but it wasn't all bad. They just need to take the necessary time to write an airtight script and figure out the direction they want to follow before hiring the directing team for the next instalment.

James Bond will return, and all being well he'll be on the same imperious form we know he's capable of.
7/10
Good movie but disappointing sequel to superior Casino Royale
jonathanhigh5-115 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I saw Casino Royale two years ago I found it somewhat unusual for a Bond film compared to the previous twenty prior to it. However, the movie grew on me as a Bond flick and as a reboot of the series and as a movie in general it was excellent.

Coming into Quantum of Solace I was expecting the same if not better quality of a film. In general, it was good but Quantum was just way too all over the place. My roommate and I walked out of the film very confused and it took me some reading up on the plot on Wikipedia to really understood what went on.

The movie starts right off with a car chase as Bond delivers Mr. White to MI6 for evaluation. Just when they think they have Mr. White in custody, one of M's own body guards betrays them aiding in White's escape. That was the last point I understood what was going on. From there it was one action scene after the next and you really could not follow what was going on. It seemed like Bond was just going from place to place on the seam of his pants. There are some classic moments for example when Bond is at the opera house and discovers Greene's plot by listening on his organization's secret meeting (I will tell no more). However, the whole idea of rebooting the series and stepping away from Bond movies with all action and no solid plot seemed to be destroyed here. It's almost as if all this competition from the successful Bourne series makes the producers feel they need to try the same things. The thing is, it works for the Bourne series...not so much for the Bond series. Bond and Bourne are too very different series and should be kept this way. I just hope that by Bond 23 they realize this and go back to the same basic formula that was Casino Royale.
Okay
xfirerushx17 September 2011
Quantum of Solace is a disappointment compared to the amazing film, Casino Royale. It doesn't match up at all. It doesn't even feel like a Bond film. It feels like a boring action film. There is some great action, but some action scenes are just horrible. I swear, one scene tried to be artistic and failed miserably. The camera switches back and forth every millisecond during some scenes so you can't tell what's going on. No joke. Even the opening car chase suffers from this. It is quite sad when the first 30 seconds of the movie are bad news. One action scene is just a poor copy of the amazing construction site chase scene from Casino Royale. The actors try here and they do good, but not enough to save this movie and I found the Bond girl to be very uninteresting in comparison to Vesper. Quantum of Solace isn't bad at all and I am being a bit unfair because I loved Casino Royale so damn much, but it is very hard to not be disappointed. This movie drags at too many scenes, the action sequences are very mediocre with the only outstanding action scene being the very last one, and the plot never seems to explain itself fully. Why can't the movie explain things to me instead of passing by something very important in just one second? If you miss one sentence of dialog, you are screwed as the movie ends up going to places where you wonder, "Why is the movie here now?" It is things like that that make this Bond movie just boring. It tries to be realistic, but it spoils the movie. We want Bond. We want gadgets. We want great set pieces. We want great villains. Oh and the villain, Mr. Green, never manages to be as interesting as Le Chiefe or most of the Bond Villains for that matter. He is just so plain, boring, and nothing about him is memorable. Oh and back to the bad editing. The plane scene is VERY boring and that was supposed to be one of the standout set pieces. Instead, you can't even tell what is going on. I despise this movie for trying to be something it is not and for taking a realistic route than the Bond route and I am sick of it. Hopefully, Bond 23 will fix things. And this realism is also a problem in Casino Royale too, but not as bad. GIVE HIM A JETPACK OR SOMETHING PLEASE!!! I am being a bit unfair, but it is hard not to get angry with this movie, especially if you are a fan of Bond. I am hoping the next Bond film will fix things up. Quantum of Solace is okay. If you can see past its problems, by all means, watch it. I give this movie a 6 out of 10.
9/10
Very Good Film, But Can Not Stand Alone
asdodge16 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig returns for round 2 as James Bond... or should we say Round 1.5. The movie is very good with a subtle plot that many seem to be missing, including a great red herring throwing many folks off (it involves "oil"). "Quantum of Solace" begins immediately where "Casino Royale" left off, and this may be its one weakness. Of all the Bond films, each is a "stand-alone." You can view the main movie without needing to know the other movies. In "Quantum of Solace," you HAVE to know "Casino Royale." Bond, although playing the uncaring spy, seeks revenge on those who killed Vesper in "Casino Royale." His brutal quest ends up uncovering a much deeper plot and a secret criminal organization that is in deep everywhere.

(((SPOILER))) You can tell who are hard-core members of this organization by their names. In an apparent ode to "Reservoir Dogs," all the baddies have color names (Mr. White, Mr. Greene, Mr. Slate, etc). The group, SPECTRE-like, calls itself "Quantum." (((end spoiler)))

Anyhow, Bond uncovers a philanthropist, Mr. Greene, who is also up to no good and has a plot to corner some utilities markets. On his quest for revenge, Bond gets caught up in the machinations of another agent, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who has her own agenda.

The supporting actors are good, the action is intense, and there are not many quiet moments, This is Bond at its most intense and brutal. After hearing the critics and complainers rip on this movie, my wife and I feared watching it, but our fears were unfounded. The movie was exciting, though not in the more formulaic Bond fashion. Withoout giving more away, there are sub-plots here that stretch to other Bond movies and future ones. This is a movie one may need to watch a second time to catch the hidden references, allusions, and catch the seeds being planted. The action is in your face, but the plot requires one to actually think- something many viewers have forgotten to do in this "beat the audience with your message/there is no message" movies around today. We enjoy thinking on our own, and to truly understand the plot of this movie, you need to see it in conjunction with "Casino Royale" and ask some questions quietly. In the end, that is the only weakness of this movie... it really can not stand alone... this was the true Denouement of "Casino Royale" and really has to be seen in conjunction with it. Certain plot lines flow through both movies (the entire motivation of QOS comes out of CR). This movie seems to suffer from the same criticisms that plagued "The Man With the Gun"- after an explosive intro for a new Bond, the next one goes a little differently, and the pre-conceptions of what a "sequel" should be don't mesh with what is given and some can't handle it. One must go into such movies with no pre-conceptions or expectations. Let the movie speak for itself- not mix it with your vision. In this case, you must listen to the entire CR-QOS dialog before judging. You just may be surprised and enjoy it more.
7/10
Audio, whisper talk
zakdbrown25 July 2020
This is my 2nd daniel craig james bond film and one of the reasons I put off watching the series for so long. I can't hear you! wtf are they thinking with this whisper talk dialog every godmn scene is mumbling hushed whisper talk. You're making a movie is the dialog so unimportant that you don't need to hear them at all? I have to turn my sound on full blast to make out a word but then I can't watch at night because the fx and music is super fckn loud. Serious baffled that out of billions of people I'm the first to bring up this issue.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A disappointing entry to the series
alanwilson833 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Leading up to the release of Qauntum of Solace my expectations were not high because of the early reviews and I thought it would be difficult to match the outcome of the brilliant Casino Royale. I know regard Casino Royale as a modern day classic and one of the best Bond movies.

QoS is high on action and low on story, in-depth characterisation, humour and interesting characters. The plot is frustratingly difficult to follow and I came out of the cinema struggling to remember what the plot was about. CR was also difficult to follow but it still kept you hooked.

The action is let down because of the shaky camera that is very similar to the Bourne movies. The main weakness about the film is that it does not feel like a Bond movie. David Arnold's theme is non existent and for some reason he chooses not to use the Bond Theme until the end credits. Also I do not understand why the traditional gun barrel sequence is moved to the end and not at the start. The film lacked any humour and the witty one liners are not present. Little changes like this is how it makes the film feel like an ordinary film and not a Bond film.

Finally I was surprised by Daniel Craig's performance, in CR he was cool, dangerous, witty but also human. However in QoS he is a moody killing machine that just frowned all the way through. Don't get me wrong he was great in the action scenes but he just was not interesting as a character. Overall the film is a let down, I just hope that in the next film they bring back some of the traditional elements such as Monnypenny, Q, humour etc.
6/10
This movie had high expectations, but low results
HowlingRabbit33427 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw all Bond classics from Dr. No to Die Another Day, but nothing was better than Casino Royale, which starred Daniel Craig and Eva Green. The plot line was well thought and the excellent layout of the movie, with the tweeked gunbarrel sequence, made me want to watch it over and over again.

Casino Royale was directed by Martin Campbell, and since Quantum of Solace was being directed by Marc Foster, I expected it to be different, and it was, but not in a good way. This film was a let-down for thousands, maybe even millions of Bond-lovers out there. All it became was a set of events blitzing between city from city, where as the viewer has no idea how he got there or why. The movie was not understandable most of the time, it was just some rushed events that didn't seem to fit into the plot line. Plus, the fact that the gunbarrel sequence for Quantum of Solace was at the end of the movie, not even near the beginning, like other Bond movies, struck me hard. Marc Foster seemed to hate that feature and wanted to remove it, but since it was James Bond, he had to put somewhere, and the only place that was good beside the beginning, was the ending. But it still was quite shocking.

A few deaths including General Medrano and Domonic Greene made it a little action-like, but overall, I just didn't seem to get the thrill like I did during Casino Royale. The villains didn't have that sinister feeling like Le Chriffe or even 006. And they weren't. in my opinion,even villain-like at all. At least until their deathly experiences at the desert hotel.

I thought this movie was a serious let-down for me, despite how much I was hoping to first watch it, and I sure hope that the twenty-third Bond movie would not be as upsetting as this one. Not recommended for those who like a good, gripping storyline, I'd give this a straight six out of ten, not any lower score, simply because it was a Bond movie and Bond movies have their reputation for being really exciting.
9/10
Fresh evolution to the status quo.
The_Orenda23 November 2008
Bond is definitely back as Daniel Craig has settled into the role so perfectly well. Having not seen Casino Royale yet, much of the continuation from the first movie was fresh and new, but not hard enough to pick up for someone who is new to the current status quo. Past saying that, Quantum of Solace has lived up to the reputation that has become par for Bond. Espionage, action, car chases, beautiful women, international locales, etc. etc. And it's a good thing. Heaps of praise to the men and women responsible for the excellent action sequences and a witty dialogue, all of which compensated for an overly melodramatic score and plot. "For Bond, this time it's personal!" Good grief! At least Olga Kurylenka is beautiful.

Anyways, the movie is excellent, a must for fans of Bond and anyone who enjoys a good action film. Quantum of Solace will look nice whether at your theater or on your HD screen either way.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Welcome Back 007
SnakeEclipse14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'll go on record and say this might be my second favorite Bond film after Casino Royale.

MAJOR Spoilers AHEAD!!!!

An engaging Bond film on both levels. The action was fulfilling. Since people are complaining so much about plot and character development, I'll start there.

The plot moves a little fast, but it's there. Some people just seem too brain dead to watch, because they're too awestruck by Casino Royale that they can't find the sense to move on and accept newer Bond films.

Bond wants revenge and he stumbles on an organization that is behind the death of Vesper from CR: The villain wants control of the world's oil supply in exchange for control of certain South American Governments. It turns out that the main villain, Dominic Greene, actually wants control over the country's water supply and send it into drought.

Certain characters are back from CR including Felix Leiter, Mathis, and Mr. White.

Felix. Not as much depth as the last one, but he serves his purpose, and the scene in the bar shows the blossoming of his relationship with James for me.

Mathis was given much more to do this time around and I really loved the scenes between him and Bond. It was a crushing blow when he died, and it was downright cruel of Bond to just stick him in the dumpster, but if any of you bother to read the novels which the CREATOR WROTE!, you'd find Bond is a cold bastard, which is more what we see in this film. No boner jokes, no gadgets, just flesh, blood, and duty.

My favorite scene between Bond and Mathis is on the flight back to South America and Bond is grieving over Vesper with about 6 drinks. Now, who can say they haven't dealt with loss like that? I'm willing to bet a large number of people would do exactly as Bond does. Everyone complains that BOnd is too cold and humorless for a man seeking revenge. Well, CHARACTER CHANGE! We shouldn't be looking for a copy of what he was in CR.

For those of you who watched CR, Bond knew he had to toughen up. He's a government agent, and if he doesn't shut off his emotions, then he's as good as dead. Yes, he's human, he hurts, but Bond can't show it. In GoldenEye, Bond himself says being cold is what keeps him alive. That's all in here. Everyone is just itching for an emotional breakdown or some kind of pointless quip. That'd be more unBond than a Roger Moore movie.

Mr. White, gets his chance to shine in the beginning of the film and he turns a bit more maniacal this time around. (GASP) CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!!

GIRLS

M. She is given more screen time than in any other Bond film, and there is one scene that shows her vulnerability. She genuinely does care about him, and they both know that. Bond saved M's life in this movie, and her gratitude shows at the end.

Camille. Sexy, tough, but emotionally damaged, similar to Melina from FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. II had to complain about anything here, it would be the chemistry between them. It felt a little flat, but there were moments that made up for it, such as when Bond gives her his jacket and listens to what happened to her and why she is seeking revenge. I rated Casino Royale a 10 because the Bond and Vesper's relationship worked so well, and they met as verbal equals. This time it was more balance for Camille's character, and I think Olga will get far more chances to shine. Bond doesn't ride off into the sunset this time, and it seems like he finds his so called Quantum of Solace with her. As much as I would have liked to see her as another notch on his belt, she isn't, which sets her apart from other Bond girls.

Fields. Yes, she was a waste of Bond girl. Nice reference to Goldfinger, but in her defense, Jill Masterson was also a wasted Bond girl, but essential in giving Bond a lead on Goldfinger. Fields gave her life for Bond as many have. I don't think the main Bond girl needs to die like Vesper to make it a good movie, but there could have been more there.

As for Greene and Modrano, decent Bond villains. Modrano was somewhat Camille's villain but Greene was better than I expected and I wasn't expecting much. CR had many wasted villains. Even Le Chiffe who beat Bond to a pulp probably couldn't compete with Bond in a fair fight. Greene was more ruthless, especially when he was verbally attacking Bond at the party. There's no bull behind him. He doesn't want to invite him in for tea. He simply wants BOnd out of the way, that plus he's a return to the megalomaniac villains of the past. Him and Fields were nice past tributes.

The humor is dry, but funny. My favorite being when Bond tells the man on the motorcycle that he missed, and knocks him over to steal the bike. Very Bondish.

My only other complaint was the obvious CGI drop from the plane. Not a delight to see anymore CGI in Bond films, but it's better than a damn ice wave and surfing on it.

SPOILER! As for the ending, I was very satisfied to see Bond tie up the loose ends. He was able to let go and let himself become the cold hard killer we love, both inside and out. And I think it was a wise move saving the gun barrel for the end, because you know by that time, Bond has returned.
9/10
The Perfect Bond Film!!!!!
cinefreakdude6 August 2011
Quantum of Solace will always be my favorite James Bond movie. It's the first one I saw and I just can't help but really enjoy it. Some people disliked this movie, well I thought it was epic. Daniel Craig is awesome as 007, Olga Kurylenko is fantastic, and so is all the rest of this movie's cast. I loved Casino Royale as well, but Quantum is mush faster- paced, and it amps up the action which of course I love. Another thing that I liked more about Quantum of Solace than Casino Royale was the running time. Quantum's time perfect, while Casino I thought was just a tad too long. So overall, it's a epic and VERY enjoyable movie, it has a great plot, great acting, and spectacular action!!! 10/10
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not worth the hype
padmanaditya7 November 2008
I went to see the movie today(cos its releasing in India a week earlier) but i was disappointed with this movie... It starts off really good with a nice car chase sequence,however as the movie progresses it becomes boring with the action sequences(especially the last scene) really sucking. after seeing batman i would rather give this movie 3/10,else it deserves a overall 5/10.. u cant compare this movie with casino Royale.the story line is good,but not properly developed. Sony pictures has been hyping the movie too much,i would recommend them to watch bourne ultimatum or even batman:dark knight.i would not recommend this movie,however die hard would surely be disappointed.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Too much 'In-your-face'
kpbpdancers21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After looking forward to another Bond outing - what a disappointment! Time after time the splintered action sequences just caused confusion from being bombarded with incoherent images and sound. Until well over half way through the film the reason behind MI6's and Bond's interest and pursuit of the 'villain' remained vague and unconvincing. Likewise the supposed presence of incredibly motivated 'sleepers' in every organisation - For a Water Company !! The feeling that we were seeing 'just another action movie' a la Bourne remained after we left the theatre. As for the theme tune - what tune ? A disaster. We hope this is not the end of the road for Bond because Daniel Craig is really good in the role and he deserves better
9/10
A Bond film for people who don't really like Bond films...
johnbirch-23 January 2010
I've never really been a fan of Bond - and I loved this film. My wife, on the other hand, is a Bond fan - and walked out after 20 minutes. In a way this says all you need to know about a film so far from Roger Moore that his oeuvre might as well by Whitehall farce.

Its complex, its all action, it demands - requires - total concentration. Blink and you will miss an important bit of the plot. So don't blink - just enjoy the ride.

On the other hand, if you are a fan of Smersh and over-the-top villains with white cats, amusing quips, and simple black-and-white plots than all the family can enjoy... forget it. This is really not the film for you.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Perfect Use of CGI
Fritz_Gerlich1 July 2011
This is not a plot/character driven movie, it is an action movie. So if you aren't particularly fond of action, you'll probably want to skip this one. The plot is incoherent, and the characters paper thin and dull. But the action, oh the action...

My beef with most current action movies is the over-reliance on cgi and the tendency for animators to completely ignore physics. When something looks real on screen and the cgi invisible, it has much more impact for me, and I think for most people. Anyone remember in Blade II when Wesley Snipes has a scene where it alternates between fantastic choreographed fighting and 100% CGIed Wesley and his opponents. The CGI ruined what could have been a great scene by making it laughably cartoonish. By contrast, The Dark Knight was such a good movie in part because Nolan made a conscious decision to use as little cgi as possible, Quantum has the same ethos.

At its core, the action sequences are real, and Craig does most of it himself (you should watch the bonus features to see one particularly bond crunching jump he did off an Italian roof). The real action is then modified by the cgi team to remove things like harnesses, guy wires, scaffolding etc. They do not change the basic action, there are no moments when Bond becomes a comic book hero doing things that no human could do. When he lands, you feel it. It is such a refreshing movie in that way and allows the viewer to enter the world.

So if you are like me, and are tired of cgi excess but still like a good action movie, you should watch this one.
6/10
plenty of action
david_r_cox11 April 2020
Not the best of Bond movies, however if you like action and impossible escapes ?
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than Casino Royale?
cuteasfunk26 November 2008
The Bond Franchise is going through a transition....and clearly not yet a renaissance. However, reading some of the comments....I felt compelled to try and balance up for those who have not yet seen the film.

First things first....there are no gadgets....as we are no longer in the 60's or 70's and a pen that acts as a radio receiver or a laser gun etc etc is not particularly astounding when an ordinary member of the public can film and then send a video half way round the world on a phone....I applaud the decision to drop gadgets....(also in the last Brosnan Bond the John Cleese Q was taking the camp quality of Bond movies too far......

Yes the camera work is a little impenetrable at times....but that is the current shorthand for "Actionspeed" - eventually someone is going to produce an action movie but at a "bergmanesque pace......

The plot......well it's not the Brothers Kamarazov.....but then the movie is a "divertissement" ....there are many "loopholes".....most notably....what's the point of the hotel in the desert?

You do need to have seen Casino Royale to understand the dilemma and drive behind Bond wanting to get to the bottom of the organisation that was responsible for Vesper's death.....and I am not sure anyone actually buys the resurrection of Mathis as a good guy.......

Daniel Craig......? What is the fetish with facial cuts? Can we have a little less muscularity and a little more depth....of which he is clearly capable

I found the movie to be quick, exciting, with enough plot twists and confusions to make it a relatively light but enjoyable and intellectual diversion.

Let us be clear there are enough movies about that the producers have spent money of this nature and not produced either a thoughtful or exciting film....

Overall, I think this film is trying to move the franchise forward and they have used Casino Royale as the starting point......the real interest will be where they finish......
6/10
or: The Bond Who Wanted To Become Bourne But Fell Flat
cericsso22 November 2008
Back in the old days, James Bond had, in general, always been an uneventful but safe character, as were the movies. They weren't all bad (some were though), just not new and exciting. Like chewing on that old faithful peppermint bubblegum for the umpteenth time. But with the effective reboot of the franchise via "Casino Royale", Bond suddenly got depth. And with it, the movie reached new heights; it wasn't just a great Bond-movie, it was one heck of a great movie in general. That set the standards high for "Quantum of Solace", the direct sequel to the aforementioned movie. And unfortunately, as with high standards so often, they crash.

The problem with "Quantum" is not that it's bad, because it's not. It's just a bit bland compared to what we were set to expect. It does have an exciting and fluent storyline with true Bond elements: action, cars, chicks and bad guys with megalomaniac intentions to rule the world (which fortunately are now more political and less campy in nature). It also has a great Bond in the form of Daniel Craig, who passes his second test with honors. Director Marc Forster, more known for "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland" with scriptwriter Paul Haggis is perhaps more to blame here. As a director of drama, Forster has a good touch and skill for capturing those moments on screen, but as a director of dynamic fast-paced action, he doesn't really deliver. One can't help but wonder whether all the lightning-paced cuts of the close-up shots and confusing inter cuts of events in "Quantum", which give the viewer more headache and nausea than a good overview of the act, is Forster's insecurity as an action director. But as balance, it could be mentioned, that during the moments when the action subsides and the pace slows down, the movie also shines.

The dramatic arch of "Quantum of Solace" feels momentarily more like a straight line with occasional small bumps than a clear climb towards a the dramatic climax, and the pacing, at least in the beginning, has the elements of a video game; action scenes interlaced with story driven moments that lead to the next action-scene. The main villain was also a bit weak compared to the story. And the famous Bond-introduction sequence of "Quantum of Solace" was also horribly boring and deathless, compared again to "Casino Royale's" innovative and dynamic approach. And speaking of which, the theme, composed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, was more of a mediocre hip hop-hit than a catchy Bond theme.

Many have criticized Bond of becoming too much Jason Bourne; intelligent multi-layered story lines, less campy humor and raw realistic action. All this is slightly evident in "Quantum of Solace", and it's definitely not a bad thing, I like this modern Bond. But what makes "Quantum of Solace" less of a movie than "Casino Royale" is that it almost wants too much to be the modern Bourne-Bond, but with it, it reverts back to the cliché-Bond. If "Casino Royale" was the "Goldfinger" of the 21st century, "Quantum of Solace" was closer to "A View To A Kill".
8/10
The opening smacks you in the face.
jmworacle-9902530 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a harrowing chase to deliver MR. White for interrogation Bond is putting on a brave front over the loss of Vesper Lynd. After a few questions MR White realizes that MI6 has no idea about the organization he works for. He then announces that his group has people "everywhere" at that "M's" bodyguard shoots one of the other guards. The confusion allows MR White to escape. Bond has no choice but to kill the traitor.

A lead takes 007 to Haiti in order to question a contact. Bond is ordered to bring him back alive for questioning. Alas that doesn't happen. He then assumes the man's identity and he meets Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko one of the best Bond girls ever) he was suppose to kill her but he doesn't Bond is then led to a character named: Dominic Greene an Eco-Warrior in the mode of Leonardo Di Caprieo and Al Gore. Complain about the eco destruction while flying around in their Jet stream and riding in limousines.

Fearing Bond has gone "rouge" he not only has to deal with Quantum but the C.I.A, and MI 6. After learning Quantum's reason behind the equipment used for "Oil exploration". After finding out about Vesper's former lover he heads to Russia. He confronts the "dead" lover with his new target Corine from Canadian Intelligence played by Stana Katic who is destine to become Kate Beckett on Castle. After interrogation he walks out of the apartment to meet with "M".
6/10
No solace here
centralbeerangi14 November 2008
From one ardent Bond fan to the film makers: "Why did you lose confidence in the Bond franchise that you worked so hard to revitalize with Casino Royale? How can a can't miss revenge story line set up by the terrific ending of the previous film miss the mark so badly? 1. I think it was a colossal error to mimic the editing style of Bourne movies. The action scenes are incomprehensible! Where was Stuart Baird? or John Wright or Mark Goldblatt or Frank J.Urioste or the many other great action movie editors--all these guys owe a huge debt to Peter Hunt the editor of the great early Bond films. You set the gold standard for urgency and punch in editing fight scenes with the train fight scene in From Russia With Love which Peter Hunt assembled. If Quantum had done a better job here, that alone would make this movie a heck of lot better than it is. 2. Revenge is a great plot device, but a villain who is milquetoast at best simply does not generate any tension: There is no way this Greene was going to take Bond. Think about Sean Bean versus Pierce Brosnan or Pierce versus Robert Carlyle for genuine tension in the fight scenes. 3. The central plot angle is not fully developed--but it does not take much to do this right. You showed with Goldfinger and Goldeneye how to tersely set up the villains plans and make it believable. 4. Stealing from your own heritage is tacky. Did you not have any creative ideas other than to steal from Goldfinger for a gratuitous plot turn??? You pay your writers a ton of money to come up with exciting stories, right and this is the result? 5. A short running time is not bad; but when it is wasted on incoherent action scenes and a key plot advancement happens off screen, this reveals another error in judgment. In fact one character can be completely edited out without affecting the tone or the plot one bit and then you would have a 100 minute movie. Casino Royale has been criticised for its length. But i wonder how you could shorten that movie without eliminating something critical--you cant. The story is perfect there. Here alas, the movie seems much longer than it is! 6. Did you change your mind somewhere along the way like you seemed to do with Die Another Day? That movie began as a serious action movie and then suddenly morphed into a cartoon by the 60% mark. There are plenty of clues to suggest that this might have been the case with Quantum. The action scenes and the quiet scenes simply do not mesh. The quiet scenes really play well and are acted superbly. Electing to go with lots of manic movement substituting for action, it seems you are gambling that this is what the facebook generation will crave. Perhaps so, but the world has not changed so much since Casino Royale to nullify the story telling philosophy of that movie. What made you decide to abandon that approach?

I hope you make a lot of money because I will be waiting for the next installment. I am too much of a fan to take my marbles and go home. I will come back to the next film. This could have been a great movie but, honestly, it is simply ordinary this time around."
8/10
In response to a previous critical comment
Jason-Boulton17 November 2008
Im a long time James Bond fan. The role is bigger than any one actor and I appreciate all the different portrayals of this character. From Sean Connerys finest (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger) to Roger Moores eyebrow raising best (The Spy Who Loved Me), gritty relaunches of the franchise (The Living Daylights) and the ones that are really very good but get dismissed (OHMSS).

Now I am also a very big Daniel Craig fan and could not believe it when he got this role I was absolutely convinced he would nail it after the series lost its way with Die Another Day (which is not awful just very tired).

Now I will say this - never has there been a closer film version of James Bond to the original vision of the Ian Flemings books...and that includes Connery.

Now let me respond with respect to the previosu negative comments...

"Terrible and uninteresting opening sequence that doesn't act as a precursor to the main plot at all"

Did you not watch Casino Royale atall - Mr White was shot in the Leg at the end of that film. This film picks up almost immediately after that scene - Bond is taking him for interrogation and Mr White's people are trying to stop Bond. Bond despatches them all and makes it to the interrogation with Mr White. Nice 1st words spoken 'Time to Get out' - LOVE IT...

"No gun barrel sequence after it (why?)"

Did you not see the gun barrel scene at the end of the movie. This was the final handing over of the baton to the new James Bond. And the scene was not revamped in any way - it was the 'Classic' gun barrel scene - awesome.

"Lame title sequence that is too similar to many others of the past"

OK I admit I didn't enjoy the song when I first heard it but these titles work very well with it and I thought they were pretty good.

"Terrible title song"

Its not my favorite - see response above tho.

"Never once are the lines "Bond. James Bond." or "Shaken, not stirred" uttered by Bond in the movie"

Neither are those phrases uttered in several of Fleming's books. He is actually a spy you know - sometimes its good not to keep shouting your name out. The drink was actually explained quite well by the bartender on the flight - perfect and straight out of the books...

"Never once is the famous James Bond Theme played during the movie (can you believe it?)"

Again I take it you left before the gun barrel scene at the end of the movie. Theme played there in its original format. As for the music in the film once again Dave Arnold proves he can match Mr Barry in most instances tho Mr Barry will always be the man in my mind.

"Absolutely no seduction scenes save for a short implication"

OK I give up - Were we watching the same film?

"No gadgets for Bond, even less than in Casino Royale" What you mean like in the books? Guess what - HE IS A TRAINED KILLER.

"Bond spends most of the movie in sadness for the death of Vesper and has a very embarrassing scene where he talks about it"

This is a continuation of the plot from Casino Royale. Bond loved that girl and hates himself for it as he knows he needs to remain cold.

"In addition, Quantum of Solace sadly has also some grave shortcomings as a movie in general: An extremely weak bordering on barely recognizable plot"

I disagree - This is one of the best ongoing plots for any Bond Film ever. I honestly cant remember as good a plot since the very very early connery ones....

"A weak villain whose objectives are among the lamest I've seen in a Bond movie"

Again - Ongoing QUANTUM plot. Look beyond the obvious...

"RIDICULOUS direction. The average shot length appears to be about one second"

Now Im a little on your side here - Could have done with slowing the editing down a little - especially the opening scene and the fight scene involving a rogue agent 5 minutes in. I agree. Shame tho not terminal...

"It amazes me how the producers spent a reported 150 million USD on this bad movie. In my opinion it is the worst of all Bond movies (which is even more sad since I like Casino Royale the MOST)"

Im surprised you liked Casino Royale so much as I thought this film was a good continuation of the themes started by that film. I know everyone is different but was this film really that bad as you say. In my humble opinion I thought it was a little better than Casino Royale tho both are great films that I can watch time and time again.

I hope you take (and everybody reading this) my responses in a positive way. I think the next film will really push the Quantum storyline to an exciting level and Im already looking forward to it.

Daniel Craig? Well done - you nailed it.
5/10
The names Garbage, complete garbage
despo8415 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a huge fan of Bond and have been since I was little. This film is probably the worst bond film i have ever seen, worse than Never say Never Again. The first problem is the script. This film was obviously put together quickly and seems as though it was purely made for monetary gain. The plot is non-existent and the film has no direction. Im sure Marc Forster is a good director, but this film proved otherwise for me. The opening car chase was excellent, but after it ends, the film takes a nose dive. I feel that Craig is an excellent actor, i have enjoyed many of his movies and he has true acting talent, and the same goes for Judi Dench. The acting in this film was excellent, the problem was purely directorial and script related. I was very disappointed with this film and i feel that most Bond fans will be also. I hope that the next bond film has better writers and i am very excited that Marc Forster has said he will not be back to direct the next film, this is a franchise that can do without him. I would love to see Martin Campbell come back and return the franchise to its rightful spot as he so marvelously did with Casino Royale and Goldeneye. I suggest waiting for this film to come out to rent, its definitely not worth the movie ticket cost or the paper they are printed on.
10/10
Top Top Film
adampearson713 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of solace is simply magnificent, When i read others saying it is missing that BOND feeling, i feel rather sad for them. When you watch this film, you already know this is James Bond, if you watched Casino Royale, you would also know that Bond lost Vesper, who he had fallen in love for and was ready to give everything up for her, she not only died in front of him, but had also betrayed him and was in love with another man, yes i think she had also fallen for Bond, Yet that didn't really matter to Bond in the end, probably made him feel worse. So then we move an hour forward to Quantum of Solace were Bond is taking Mr White to M. Now, those who feel that for the rest of the film he's a little bit moody and a little bit too eager to assassinate everyone he meets, should wonder how they would be in the same situation. Yes i know he is a secret agent, but they still have a heart that can be broken. There are actually many BOND moments in QOS, yet some have chosen to ignore them. Bond was never going to go straight from CR, where he had just earned 00 status, to QOS and be all smooth talking and charming, In QOS Bond still finds moments for this, but he is so angry and is hurting inside because of Vesper, he is mainly just going through anyone in his way towards those responsible, yet don't worry about smooth when it comes to dispatching those, some of the action is breathtaking, Bond showing that when its time to fight, he will take on anyone. Overall this really is a classic film, not just a classic Bond Film, But a CLASSIC film.
1/10
An Insult to the Art of Cinematography
spingk27 November 2008
This movie is made for the ADD Action loving American. If you liked the Bourne Trilogy (I will admit that I did enjoy them as much as the next person), consider this Bourne 4 - The Bad Sequel. I have nothing against fast paced action scenes. Quick cuts pump up the adrenaline of the viewer and enhance the realness of the scene. The problem is that the action scenes in this movie were impossible to logically follow. There were two or three scenes that were very well done. But seeing as there was no plot this meant nothing. The only way this movie could make sense is if you invented half of the story yourself. There was no character development. Even for the main baddie! The whole movie was two hours of action scenes with maybe 10 minutes of dialog. Don't waste your $10 on this piece of garbage. This movie takes it's place on the list with Plan 9 From Outer Space.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Unique addition to the Bond series
enochsneed24 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was prepared to hate QoS just thanks to word of mouth: it was the worst/shortest/hardest to follow Bond film with incomprehensible action scenes.I skipped watching it for seven years after it was released. Having finally seen it, I think it's a unique Bond film and probably an experiment that will never be repeated - certainly 'Skyfall' drew back into more familiar Bond territory with a creepy villain planning global destabilisation coupled with a bit of personal revenge.

First, QoS is a direct sequel to its predecessor. In fact, it's the film 'Diamonds are Forever' would/could have been if George Lazenby hadn't torn up his letter of intent, returned his advance fee and given up the role of Bond. 'Diamonds are Forever' would have opened with Bond's wedding and his wife's murder. A very dark, violent tale of personal revenge would have followed. Instead we got a safe mix of humour and a few - very few - thrills. Maybe Lazenby's Bond would have almost ruined his MI6 career and been hounded by his own people and the CIA as he went after Blofeld, who was now being courted by governments for his technological know-how? No, this would have been far too cynical for 1971.

Second, the film actually carries a political message. The villains here don't want to rule the world, they want to control the water supply of an entire continent. Some think this is lame, but it amounts to the same thing. The scenes of villagers desperately trying to catch the last drops of water falling from their old well are actually very moving. The water source finally stops and they leave sadly on the next bus, to who knows what future.

The Quantum organisation doesn't have its own space station, but it can buy individuals, and strong-arm governments into giving them control over natural resources, their sale and distribution. Can't you just hear news headlines trumpeting the "vigorous programme of economic reform" of Bolivia's new government?. Just to rub the message in, there's a clear reference to Venezuela's President Chavez, the "Marxist giving oil money back to the people". The Bond films have never made such an open reference to the contemporary world, or taken such a clear political stand. Only the fact that Quantum seems to be made up of 'rogue' elements rather than actual businessmen makes it fictional.

Finally, the film is genuinely thrilling. You feel Bond really is up against the world, and the world is a very nasty place. Not merely dangerous - nasty. Gemma Arterton's tripping of Greene's henchman seems a typical piece of Bondian humour - until she is found smothered in crude oil ("Her lungs were full of it" says M, although I'm not sure when the autopsy took place!). Much less fun than 'Goldfinger'. And it's worth remembering the Quantum organisation still exists at the end of the film, however shadowy it may be.

Yes, the action scenes are *very* quick and it can be hard to know who's doing what to whom, and while I admired the cutting between the chase and the Siena Palio, for example, I found the same technique confusing in the opera sequence. I loved the film, and I'm looking forward to a Bond double event, watching 'Casino Royale' and QoS back-to-back.

As I said, this comes across as a unique experiment in the Bond canon, and one which will probably never be repeated, but it was worth the effort and I loved it.
4/10
I hope Bond will be returned to his former glory after Quantum of Solace!
Eddy-3016 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Being a huge fan of Bond, I have as many others seen every movie with him ever made (even those not officially part of the series) many-many times. Watching a James Bond movie is supposed to put you into a special mood. A mood of mystery, of action, of beautiful women, gadgets, sarcastic humor and in fact make you feel a little bit as part of an agent who was a legend ever since we saw him in Dr No.

Quantum of Solace does not even come close to put me in this mood! We lack a good and thorough plot line, which always has kept us on our toe tips before. We barely have a bad guy who is either mad or extremely smart. The Quantum - now in place of the old Spectre - of course does give us a mysterious bad enemy to fight against, but very little has so far come out about them to make us really interested and excited about Bond cracking down on them.

We completely lack Q and the special gadgets that in part made it so cool to watch 007- movies. And where is Moneypenny?!! Furthermore, I could once accept that Bond falls in love and is hurt as a human being (this we have seen previous times as well - when his wife was killed), but to allow him all this rage and wish for revenge is just way too much. This also kills another cool part of Bond movies - that with beautiful women and the element of seduction. We barely get to see anything in Quantum - only a hint with regards to the British girl working at the consulate.

Also, where have the sarcastic jokes gone?! Nowhere is 007's specific humor to be found! Where is 'Dry Martini - shaken, not stirred' and 'My name is Bond - James Bond'?!! Whatever happened to the many cool action scenes that signify ALL Bond movies?!!

It is of course not possible to make each movie the same way, but whoever is out there that can take decisions on these things, I plead to you, PLEASE give Bond back his glamour and prestige, please give us back the Bond we used to have and be so excited about seeing at the movies! Please give us back our legendary James Bond for the next film, respecting the memory of Ian Fleming and Albert R. Broccoli!
8/10
Bravo!
nasakcuf-329 November 2008
My exposure to the Bond series begin with Roger Moore; I've seen Sean Connery's take on Bond and I still prefer Moore to Connery. Having said that, I have to say that I prefer Craig to Moore. In this movie, this version of Bond comes across as a real person acting realistically in the situations he finds himself in. In the end, I found this movie to be one helluva ride, with lots of stunts (some of which made me cringe) and fast editing (but not so fast as to create confusion).

Unlike previous outings, Bond isn't primarily concerned with an evil villain at the outset but one emerges nevertheless. Although the scope and scale of the villainy is somewhat smaller than what I've seen in previous Bonds it still came across effectively and, in the end, this is definitely a Bond movie. One nit to pick: The signature gun barrel and theme music are absent from the beginning and only show up later. I can't say I liked the theme music they used.

Overall, this was money well spent for me.
7/10
Casino Royale v1.5
frankenbenz6 December 2008
Casino Royale was perhaps the best Bond film in the long running franchise; in short, it was grittier, more realistic and more human than any of its predecessors. By comparison, Quantum of Solace feels like a holding pattern. The latest Bond is a forgettable mix of passé locations, unmemorable (and impossibly blurred/overcut) action sequences, homogenized bad guys and a drowsy Daniel Craig. For no good reason, many of 007's signature traits are either toned down or completely missing from QoS: little charm, less glitz and few gadgets. Even more mysterious, is why QoS's chop licking theatrical trailer boasts a handful of shots noticeably absent from the finished product. On the poster of QoS, Bond -- with the seriously badass H&K UMP9 hoisted in the air -- advertises menace, but this proves to be false advertising. Not only is the movie devoid of any true menace, QoS doesn't even bother to put an UMP9 in Bond's hands. WTF? The talk that Director Marc Forster and screenwriter Paul Haggis are overrated A-listers is justified by QoS and if this limp incarnation of 007 does tepid box office business, Bond fans can only hope the duo are knocked back to their world of heavy-handed pseudo-indy melodramas and that the heavy lifting be left to those with foreign accents.
3/10
Why the latest Bond movie failed to charm
anirban198515 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although my first reaction to this movie was "How on earth could they make this one ?", I later sat down thinking and here's why Quantum of Solace never worked any of the charm that it's predecessor had: 1. There's a labored attempt to make this Bond appear really cool, to the point that he never speaks outside very short sentences. That's fine, but then you make the screenplay writer walk on a very thin edge--- if you don't get the right lines, that attempt at smartness might appear ridiculous, which it does here. Right in the post-climactic scene, where Bond finally realizes that going for revenge was not worth it, or to put it better, when Bond finds his quantum of solace, the terse, "smart" lines are so out-of-place that the audience was actually giggling audibly. 2. Why do the villains have to be comedians, unless they are American/English ? The Bolivian General Medrano was such a clown that it took away half the edge from the story. 3. Then the two women in the story ---couldn't they at least get a better cast ? Gemma Arterton as Strawberry Fields is so pathetic; instead of someone dispatched from the highest authority in London to restrain Bond, she appears like some ordinary idiotic cute girl just graduated from college, quite willing to run after Bond like a pet dog( for want of a better analogy). As for Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes, she dropped way down my list, as soon as she walked right into her supposed killer's hands, with only some ridiculously faint protest. Her acting couldn't have been worse. These two actresses coupled together reminded me of Kate Capshaw in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and I had never thought I would ever see worse acting. But, then, again, maybe it was not the actors, it was the miserable screenplay that never let the movie rise above being a farce. But, farce it was, there's no doubt about it.
4/10
Thin story for Bond
wruzek4 June 2021
While the story line was not overly intriguing there was plenty of action. Preposterous as these Bond movies go this one was okay and should hold interest if you don't take it too seriously. It did have the industry required blasphemy, just one, delivered early in the movie by non-other than Judi Dench. Unnecessary so deducted a couple of stars.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Quantum of Excellance
mark78811 November 2008
I waited a few days after Bond was release before I went to see it. I was aware of the comments on this website plus many other critics in the media. So was a little wary before going in.

Straight into action from the word go, perfectly shoot and edited car chase. Thought the Bond theme was pretty terrible, some kind of Rn'b beat over some lyrics, which didn't do it for me.

Remembering Bonds mood, in the last film, he is still a rookie and as this being a follow up/second mission for the character and following the death of a loved one. His demeanour has some what changed and Craig gets it spot on from start. He appears ruthless, a little edgy sometimes preoccupied, and very deadly. But as the film goes on his character is influenced and his behaviour changes. which was great to see.

Judi Dench as 'M', without a doubt, her best performance in the role so far. Far more dialogue and input into Bonds actions. A scene where all the MI6 agents are wearing dark coloured clothing, and M is dressed in complete white. Representing a kind of presence as a mother figure or guardian angle for Bond. Wasn't too keen on the whole technology side of things in MI6, looked like something out of minority report or something. Not ruining it for people who haven't seen it yet, but there are a few hints back to the old bond era, with girls!!!. I thought oh no, I know where this is going, but luckily it didn't happen. A reference to goldfinger!

Overall a good bond film. Bonds Second mission and the characters is developing well. Craig does a sterling job and good performances all round.
7/10
Uneven action-insoluble dilemmas
georgioskarpouzas9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This James Bond film begins with a sequence of breathtaking action of a chase throughout the roads of Italy. Faster cars and faster bullets are the content of this opening sequence, which is followed by another action scene of man hunt, having as background the yearly competition of Palio in Sienna, that is a form of horse race albeit one with period costumes.

After all this chaotic action, the hero, James Bond, played by the tough but suave Daniel Craig has a talk with his superior and mother figure, in the British Intelligence, M, played as always by JudI Dench and all this chaotic incidents begin to resume the skeleton of a plot.

Another sequence in Haiti puts Bond in the same car with an admittedly sexy young woman,Camille, portrayed by the Ukranian model-actress Olga Kurylenko and after she is offered as an expendable sex-present by a former boyfriend to a corrupt Latin American general, from the clutches of whom she is saved, reluctantly, by Bond. The outline of the story becomes clear even to someone of mine average film viewer intelligence.

A corrupt organization under the coverage of ecological sensitivity seeks access to oil and latter as appears to water, using as paws corrupt Latin American militarists, only to eager to collaborate. Even CIA has an conniving attitude towards the villains which gives M and Bond some cues against their transatlantic cousins.

Shadows of the past creep in as Bond has a personal score to set for the assassination of a former love, while he meets another former? agent, latter betrayed by Latin Americans, while Bond himself becomes temporarily rejected by his kind because of his rather brutal crime-fighting techniques. Also the girl has a vendetta with the corrupt Latino general who has a penchant of raping women.

In the end this Heraclitian universe of constant change of alliances and misalliances produces a form of justice rendered through the death of the major villains and regrettably of some innocents, while topics as the environment, the British-American special relationship, the nature of loyalty, the limits that must be respected in the application of lawfull authority, the inter-American international relations and others are treated and one starts to suspect that with the similar example of last Batman in mind, action movies will resemble eventually moral diatribes and biblical parables in the depth of the moral dilemmas they attempt to pose.

Non - withstanding the ponderous ethics of the movie plus the bombastic action sequences there is another element that is surprisingly absent in display although present as innuendo and that is sex. Talked about, even in its seedy and negative forms as rape and much implied, the actual sexual content of the movie is surprisingly minimal although one has to admit that most female roles are played by women who look much more appealing than the average working or for that matter middle-class girl.

There are some verbal exchanges between the leading villains that reveal the depth of their corruption, depravity, political amorality, time-serving and phenomenal cynicism that appear farcical but some environments even in "real life" tend to operate in a similar manner.

The actors serve their roles, Daniel Craig been a sort of gentrified Judge-Dread in the rough way he administers justice and Olga Kurylenko being another beautiful but restrained Bond girl. Judi Dench is just fine in her role, which she has become identified with as Christopher Lee with Dracula or John Wayne with a good cowboy (I mean the identification not the content of the roles.).The two villains, the sham ecologist- international schemer, is played by obnoxious detail by the Mathieu Amalric, while a good performance is delivered concerning the character of the power-money-sex hungry Latin American general by Joaquin Cosio, although I suspect this will raise issues of political correctness.

All in all I think, it is a movie worth watching.
5/10
A Quantum of disappointment
esobeso8 November 2008
Daniel Craig is great to watch and as convincing as ever. Unfortunately the film itself did not build on the good things that made us like Casino Royale. The editing is way to quick and you just can't see a lot of the action. Then the story is vague at best and mostly nonsense. It now feels like we are into a trilogy or something, because this certainly felt unfinished. As for the characters, the ones that were good to watch, like Mathis and Felix Lighter, didn't have much screen time. As for the Swiss boy the ONLY thing he did was phone his mum which was cute, but the rest of his role could have been played by a showroom dummy. The most expensive Bond of all time? Where did they put the money? Must have been the higher oil prices. I hope that the Bond franchise can redeem itself forget about this rubbish and make the next installment more like Casino Royale. A note to the film makers...we like the clichés like my name is Bond, James Bond!!!!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Splendid Bond Film Starring Daniel Craig
williwaw14 January 2013
Quantum of Solace is the darkest of the James Bond films and surely of the 3 starring Daniel Craig the most serious. I enjoyed the film principally due to the charismatic performance of Daniel Craig, now my favorite male film star who plays James Bond I feel as Ian Flemming wrote the character, that is tough, and at the same time impossibly elegant and charming. A Man's Man.

The filming of South American locales enjoyable Judi Dench as M is once again brilliant and I cannot think of any other actress who could do what Ms. Dench does with the role of M.

Some do not like this film, I do. and I do most of all for the star presence of Mr. Craig
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Maybe not as great as the greatest movies - but much better than reviewed.
opinionated-alchemist9 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So... I have been on a 007 spree these days. Since today I haven't seen Quantum of Solace for a long time. Having it seen now after I watched a lot of reviews, makes me wonder, if I am less critical than most (less likely).

Let's start with the negative points, shall we? Yes, the movie is a bit chopped. It is jumping from location to location. And to be honest: Bond "playing rogue" makes not a lot of sense and becomes a bit old. Another point: Mr. Greene. He seem never to get enough support by important people (not only corrupt people and the stupid CIA). As world renowned philanthropist, it would be far more compelling to have more doubt. Second: tje "evil organization and its agenda. Yeah - water is important, but it would be far more reasonable, that Greene would believe that he is the good guy. That he is saving the environment, by using his influence (...). Instead the movie has a stereotypical villain agenda (taking the water from the poor). Also: the general, which likes to do a coup to get to power and which is a typical bad rapist and killer (in the open).

Having said that, Quantum of Solace is not boring. It also gives us a break of a villain which likes to destroy the whole world (or at least the whole civilized world (...)). I believe, that critiques become far too picky with the reviews. M is fantastic like always, Bond is mostly dirty and beaten up (which is a good thing). And the women could have stronger roles - but are also believable.

Ah - maybe one more thing: Movie Bond should have more the feel of undercover in a luxury world (World of rich people). This is why he has the Aston Martin, that's why he has a pretty darn expensive taste and expensive suits. But in the last movies, the expensive hotels, cars, etc. seem just a prop - and doesn't seem to give you the awe of Bollinger R.D. (with sufficient context).
6/10
Lots of action, not much story
BlokeWithABrainUK30 March 2009
An entertaining hour and a half (or only just over), but there is little character development amongst the relentless action, and few opportunities to discover more about Bond.

This is a film that actually needs more dialogue and more character development.

In Quantum of Solace, Bond is little more than a one dimensional killing machine, and the nuances of character that made Casino Royale so absorbing are entirely missing here.

A Bond film should be about two hours long. This film feels like the missing 30 minutes should be about narrative and characters. As it is, it is basically one long chase with lots of spectacle but ultimately little of the story that makes a film compelling.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A LETDOWN IF YOU COMPARE IT WITH CASINO ROYALE
didbecu18 April 2021
Quite a disappointment if you compare it to the almost perfect Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is still great, but this movie is just a bunch of excellent and exciting stunts while the script is below average. Plus there's a lack of a real good villain and Olga Kurylenko is one of the weakest Bond-girls ever.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Acting/Action doesn't beat weak direction/writing
b-mclean62 January 2009
There was lots of potential with this film but little of it panned out. Daniel Craig is looking like the best bond ever but his performance (and Judi Dench's as M) is wasted in this film without a solid narrative. The cuts in the chase scenes are fast, close, and prone to leave the viewer a bit disoriented. Unfortunately, the story as a whole jumps around the same way. In the chase scenes, it's fine to keep things ambiguous and confusing. But, for the film as a whole, not good.

Marc Forster did a fantastic job directing Finding Neverland. Regrettably, none of the heart and warmth he got out of that film is on display here. Most of the pieces were assembled for a decent film but they did not come together.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It was not good
pcthomps24 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I would write a meaningful and thought out review of the Quantum of Solace, however; I simply am too lazy. The movie was awful. It quite possibly could be the worst Bond movie that I have EVER seen. There was no plot, and he still drives a busted Ford and talks on a cheap Sony Ericson phone. I am also sick of this whole thing about Bond being out of control and not smooth. I am waiting to get back to the days of Pierce Brosman when Bond was a bad ass, and not some dumb idiot. Also, Q was not even in the movie. I understand that the director is trying to follow Ian Fleming's books, but please, enough with the Ford (quit trying to make money through advertisements and put the BMWs and Mazeratti's back into the bond movies. Oh, also, the intro song was terrible.
5/10
Bland
GlennChole19 November 2008
QoS suffers in the wake of Casino Royale and Bourne, both of which are grander, grittier, more stylish and more exciting, even in their quieter moments. Craig's Bond is still great and somehow escapes without criticism, but it's the rest of the film that suffers under poor direction.

Despite the frequent, frenetically edited car, foot, boat, plane chases, I still felt that most of the action remained fairly bland and without any real threat. Forster aims for the style of the last film and attempts to draw life from the Bourne canon, but totally fails on creating one robust, easy to follow action scene. The action design just can't cut it - at times being downright ludicrous, and at others plain confusing. Mark Forster is a great character director, and should probably go back to that - or tried that here. That's probably why he was hired.

On the absence of threat, Bond doesn't really meet his match anywhere in this film (unlike our last episode) out-witting all of his opponents with ease. Just as we were starting to see Bond's human side, starting to gain a new interest in this character, he once again becomes invincible, and as we were beginning to find with some of the older Bond films, this is boring.

It's not that I didn't enjoy it just because it's different. Different is good. I don't care about the placement of the gun-barrel sequence. I don't care about the choice of opening song (Chris Cornell didn't make many people happy either at first). Shameless product placement? (Omega?) So what? Casino Royale was different, with it's brutal, bleeding Bond, a very atypical shower scene, the Parkour intro chase, the grainy noir pre-title sequence, the intelligently conceived title sequence that did away with dancing women. Hell! Bond even fell in love! How different can you get? In my option, what a brilliant film for it!

What I do care about is whether the film engages. Whether is looks competent, whether the plot is competently put together. This film didn't impress in any of these categories. You know you're in trouble when the characters turn up and start trying to explain the plot to each other. That's when you know that some bigwig board has decided to make the movie 'accessible'. Mistake. Though it might have been better if the plot was worth discussing.

Look, I've had my moments of dimness, but I'm usually able to follow most films, some requiring a little more concentration than others - you too? Great. So I'm not ashamed to say that I had trouble following the plot of QoS, not because it was too smart, but because a) the plot was so poorly constructed and chosen, that I b) just ended up just not caring enough to bother following it. My brain switched off, prioritising sleep over watching yet another chase sequence with the same outcome...

Sorry to be a party pooper, but come on. Lets be honest...
9/10
Frenetic and arty Bond movie
dharold31 October 2008
This frenetic and arty Bond movie will loose some of the fans that Casino Royale's deeper plot pulled in to the franchise but the action is excellent (and not just repeats of Casino Royale's) and Craig is rock-solid in the role of the agent who overuses the license to kill (in one of the films best running jokes). Never has a supporting cast been quite as useful to the franchise as across the last two Bonds - M, Mathis and Leiter all proving crucial to the film. Will the artiness put some off? Probably. No other Bond has used montages with opera and horse races to counterpoint the action or engaged in formalist conceits like basing the key action set-pieces on the four elements. But there are lighter touches that anyone can appreciate - like a knowing tribute to Goldfinger. I like it a lot and can't wait for more Craig-Bond.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Quantum of suckage
rawkensawken14 November 2008
Who ever made the original trailer for this movie should get an award for making this pile of garbage look like gold. This film was terribly directed. With action sequences that are not only hard to watch because of the shaking and cutting, but downright boring. There is no pacing, no suspense, just emotionless stunts that the viewer can't appreciate. This movie comes nowhere near Casino Royale. While CR took out some of the fat the bond series had gained over the years QoS attempted to remove anything that made the movie a bond movie. There was none of Bond's wit, his quick thinking, even his charm for the ladies was reduced to almost nothing. The plot was scattered and felt disjointed, at the end of the movie I really had no idea what had been accomplished. There are holes all of the story, and parts that just don't fit. The dialog came off as stiff some of the time, and over all the acting level was poor. Daniel Craig was the exception, giving a good performance, but he could not carry the movie himself. It is obvious that Marc Forster was way over his head in directing this movie. Go back to making those award wining movies, and leave the tough stuff to the pros.
6/10
Good movie which could have been much better
AmyJenson19953 June 2015
2 years after Casino Royale, a movie I really enjoyed from start to finish, I was quite eager to discover the new 007 opus. My first overall impression is that despite being a good movie, I have a feeling of an incomplete film.

I was expecting much more from Quantum of Solace especially as the direct sequel of Casino Royale. While the latter was very well built and actually makes a lot of sense, Quantum seems disorganized and too much fast-paced for my taste. Sure there is a lot of action but I would have hoped that the director would let us discover another psychological side of James Bond especially after the death of the woman he loved and for who he was ready to leave MI6. But Instead, there's nothing but revenge, gunfight, explosions, fistfights. I was lost between all of that.

That said, I have to say that there are still things which don't deserve to go straight to the trash. The main one is again Daniel Craig. Despite a very basic script which focuses on raw force more than anything else, he still manages to share the emotion of a grieving and angry man, who is driven by revenge but still wants to understand why the woman he loved so much betrayed him. 007 lives through Daniel Craig and he's a blessing to this movie. I would have wished the rest of the cast would be as good but it's far from that except the too rare Lady Judi Dench.

I can't give more than 6 out of 10 because this movie is just incomplete.
10/10
A decade ahead of our tastes...
zlajagackic9 November 2008
The ultimate action movie that sets the standards for another decade of stunt filming. Reasonably misunderstood in many ways, yet brilliant for those able to catch-up and connect the numerous dots in the plot.

First of all, i should explain why 8 and not 9 or 10. The reason is everybody's favorite - irritating shaky camera which kinda disables us to fully enjoy some action parts of the movie, especially the opening car-chase scene. The idea is innovative, even admirable (like it was in the Bourne series) but this amount of it only produces headache.

The plot is solid, intensively complex, a bit confusing for the viewers looking for die another day-like futuristic entertainment. I would even call QoS a psychological action-thriller. Craig is brilliant as "the dark knight" of the all-time bond series, although i wasn't very convinced he'd make it back in 2005. In 10 years we will see that Connery did launch 007 into the orbit, but it was Craig who got him closer to us, closer to reality we modern people live in or dream about. As skeptical as most of us are right now, out children will love this new Bond for another 40 years.

To producers: Next time go easy on the brain-scrambling action scenes, and the future belongs to you.
6/10
More Merciless Heroes Not Needed
agkato7 November 2008
First, the caveats. I was personally not convinced by the selection of Craig as the next Bond and I did not like Casino Royale as a James Bond film, but liked it enough as an action film. I therefore promised myself that I would view this next Bond installment as a purely action film. I left the theater more convinced that Craig is not the right actor to portray Bond.

The fact is, there are already too many action films where the hero defies the standard classification of a hero; where the hero could very well be an antihero: gritty, cold, tough and merciless. Only James Bond seemed to have all the qualities of a classical hero: suave yet tough, charming yet unfaltering, elegant yet determined. In other words, someone you could really cheer for. This was the formula and, as a James Bond fan, I loved it. This, on the other hand, is not the James Bond I know.

I realize that the owners of the Bond franchise wanted to take him to a new direction. In fact, much has been said about Craig's portrayal of Bond as being the closest to the Ian Fleming Bond. My answer is, who cares? I mean, really? I have no doubt that those who've watched Bond portrayed by Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan know Bond to be what he is: a wry, womanizing, gadget-using, alcohol-chugging, no-strand-of-hair-out-of-place-even-after-a-tough-fight super secret agent. That's how he was portrayed and I was happy that way. Every Bond movie was like clockwork: beautiful lady, nasty villain, mostly confusing story lines, sexy theme song, naked lady silhouettes, etc., etc.

This Bond is different, though. Different to the point of being unsettling, like running out of coffee so that you'd have to take tea with your breakfast, or vice-versa for our British friends. I'm really sorry, but Craig is not Bond and when his fourth Bond movie is completed, I'll be as happy as a clam.
5/10
Not so hot
Mr_Blond2320 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
People must look at this movie in two ways, it must be judged as a stand alone film in the bond series and as a sequel to Casino Royale (which I think is highly underrated on IMDb) As a stand alone bond movie, this movie was mediocre. A lot of people say it had action, but the rapid motion camera angles and succession of frames, made every attempt to comprehend what was in progress nearly impossible. Additionally, the plot was wholly deficient both in terms of character development and general story line. I mean look at how the movie started, in media res, bond is driving recklessly away from random thugs which are neither explained nor given a purpose in the movie other than randomly trying to kill bond. One must only assume that they are Mr. White's bodyguards who were never present in Casino Royale, even when their employer got shot in the leg or goes to kill Le Chiffre. Mathis is suddenly innocent with no explanation, and dies with the same lack of clarity. The movie had a few good scenes on the whole though, like the creative meaning of Quantum members at the opera (though quantum is the dumbest name for an evil organization). Another interesting scene was the pre-chase interrogation of Mr. White, and the following humor about having people everywhere. Without seeming to echo other generic critics of the movie, I have to say dominic greene was severely under developed and he could have been a really memorable bad guy. His henchmen on the other hand looked like a cross between stewart from mad-TV skits and a 40 year old virgin (with corresponding bowl-cut hair) As a sequel to casino royale, I think the movie is flat out bad. With the successful plot and character development of Casino Royale, they had a chance to make one of the best bond movies ever, but needless to say I think they dropped the ball. Instead of showing a cold angry bond out for revenge, this director misused Craig's clear talent, instead portraying bond as an almost incompetent agent who kills people because he doesn't fight well enough to keep them alive and question. In this respect, it is similar to Diamond are Forever where bond hunts down blofeld, though that was slightly more comical. He really has no clear motive to go after Greene, and only does so out of coincidence encounters with random people. Incidentally Bond seems to randomly stumble onto leads endlessly in this movie, from the surveillance of Quantum members, to meeting Camille, to the dammed water in bolivia. Greene's scene to control water in bolivia was not anywhere near on par with the organization portrayed in Casino Royale. Camille was another senseless character in that her reasoning for going after Gen. medrano was cliché and quite topical. Felix Leiter I'm glad to say was one of the successes of this movie in terms of being a sequel. Additionally, oddly enough, the continuity of M (the director of MI6) going places virtually unguarded and getting into trouble hasn't changed. The Theme used for the film is hardly worth mentioning other than to say it was almost totally inappropriate to the movie.

Though the bar was set high with Casino Royale being such a success, that doesn't serve to justify this movies complete disregard for bond tradition. There is no style in this movie, no seduction (especially with regards to Agent Fields, who just randomly appears to have had sex with bond, despite her earlier rigid personality), he doesn't even make a play for Camille. Finally , with some what of a petty detail, I must note that the gun barrel sequence was graphically very poorly done. If you are a true bond fan I'd see it just on principle, if you are just looking to see a good movie, I'd steer clear of Quantum of Solace. It isn't the worst James Bond movie ever (as that title has already been solidly claimed by On her Majesty's Secret Service, being that never say never again is not technically a bond movie), but it comes in a close second. In short, seeing this movie is another way to die.
10/10
The Best Bond movie? I'm thinking so.
m_walker_73114 November 2008
Most people are scared to admit they liked 'Quantum of Solace' because Bond doesn't sleep with tons of women, they didn't like the theme song, there are no outrageous gadgets of cheesy one-liners.

Here's a news flash. This film is a masterpiece.

People complain about the type of action-scene editing that is in this movie. Here's another news flash: It's brilliant. The editing, the cinematography, the angles; everything was flawless in QoS.

People complain about Daniel Craig's acting, and 'not being Bond enough.' This make me laugh because he is, dare I say it, the best man ever to play Bond. He sticks SO true to Ian Flemming's character. When I saw Daniel Craig play him in 'Casino Royale' I was convinced; this is the man I read about in all the books.

People say that the opening title music was horrible. Though not everyone's taste it did exactly what it needed to to; open up a fantastic movie. It was quite good when seen with all the opening credits, and honestly, I wouldn't have used any other song.

Just subtle things, too, make this movie spectacular. When Bond visits a new location, the words on the screen (telling where he is) are just so beautiful, and true to where they're supposed to be. The song that played whenever there was any mention of Vesper was beautiful, and the small significance of the love knot necklace was stunning.

The dramatic elements were top notch for a Bond film, and even better then 'Casino Royale' I'd venture to say. Daniel Craig knows how to play Bond, I'll give him that.

Another thing I loved was the fact James Bond didn't go sleeping around this time. There was one scene where he kissed a woman's neck, And then they laid back together, but you didn't even see it. THAT WAS IT. Really, sex had no place in this film, and I'm glad they toned down a bit with this one and 'Casino.' Sure Bond needs to be a suave ladies' man, which he is in this movie, he just doesn't fornicate every chance he gets. He doesn't even KISS the leading lady until the end.

Be warned, though, that if you have not seen Casino Royale, you will have no idea what is going on or who the characters in the movie are. Watch Casino Royale first, then Quantum of Solace. You will NOT be sorry.

I went in with low expectations, after reading some idiotic reviews here on IMDb. Boy. Where the idiots wrong. This movie is fantastic. Not just from a James Bond stand-point, but for anyone.

So, which was better? 'Casino Royale' or 'Quantum of Solace.' Really, they are both one film. One, two-part film. So I will judge them together, saying they, or 'it,' is the Best James Bond movie, and the best action movie I've ever seen.

Go. Watch it now. You will NOT be sorry.
4/10
Disappointed
simon-8359 November 2008
After the arrival of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond and the success of Casino Royale I was looking forward to the continuation of the series, but was (along with the group that went with me) very disappointed with this film.

With the introduction of the new Bond, the Bond franchise looked like it was back on track. Gone were the gadgets, glib one liners and weak story lines and introduced was a bond that felt pain and had real emotions.

So why don't I like QOS? Simply that the storyline was very weak - it appeared to be a lot of action scenes bound by a loosely and frankly weak plot line. The action scenes are good, the acting is good and once again Bond is played well. But where was the plot, drama and suspense?? After sitting down and watching a car chase, a few fights and some explosions, the credits started to roll and that was that... What the writers need to do is go back to the drawing board and concentrate less of the special effects and explosions and actually work in a cohesive storyline.

Many will like this film, I am just not one of them
10/10
The best James Bond in my opinion
friendlyguy10114 August 2009
I have watched this movie several times, and I liked it over all other James Bond movies. The movie is different than the stereotype James bond movies. In my opinion Daniel Craig has done his best performance ever. There are no confessions about love, pain or losses, but all his emotions are quite obvious from his suffering. Also unlike in other movies where Bond is always master of the game, in this one he seems more like a person caught up in a situation with no turning back and is fighting back. The movie is darker and feels more realistic. The stunt-men and Craig himself have done series of outstanding action sequences which is just awesome.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ignore the moaners !
it001k03061 November 2008
This is a tuffer than tuff, rough as nuts revenge thriller in which Bond is involved in loads of top class chase/fight sequences, both on foot and in any number of different types of vehicle. At one point or another, he wears a tuxedo, drinks a martini, uses his charm to bed a girl, uses guns and fists, delivers one or two bone-dry one liners and wins the day in a way that ties up the loose ends from the previous film and quite clearly, in a way that I won't explain but which should be absolutely joyous to a Bond film fan, proudly proclaims that Bond has now returned to the place that we previously knew him. The Birth of Bond ends with this film and the next should feature the more whole figure. Yes, it's different from previous Bonds quite often - but not always. So what, anyway? Those who proclaim that Bond was always lighthearted are extremely wrong. Those who say Bond always used to set the latest cinematic trends must realise that this only happened in the 60s. In 1973, 'Live and Let Die' followed the Blaxploitation trend, 'The Man With the Golden Gun' latched onto a spot of Martial Arts in the wake of Bruce Lee and 'Moonraker' whored itself in an effort to snap at the heels of 'Star Wars'. This latest couple of Bonds might well have taken a cue from Bourne but it is still always Bond in so, so many ways. Moaners may go and live in the past but fresh, open-minded lovers of quality spy/action films should enjoy the treasures before us - Craig is absolutely brilliant, Dench is ditto, the effects and stunts are awesome and the tone is brutally gritty in a way that might actually more than match Connery (though he is still and always will be the God of Bonds). More than ever before, this is the Bond of the Fleming stories, mixed up with the most modern of cinematic styles. There is much more than a quantum of solace to be found here:

BOND LIVES!!!!
7/10
We now know who Bond really is
realityinmind10 February 2019
Seeing all the negative reviews I assume that people did not pay attention while watching this movie. It is a great film that connects the events from the first film in a bondesque way to a 2nd story. Bond's progression into a cold and callous secret agent is vividly portrayed while he abandons the last remnants of love that he had for Vesper. So many things are done amazingly in this film. As I watch the credits and listen to the last song of the movie I reflect during a beautiful score and soundtrack. I love the way this movie changes the entire Bond universe. Before it was just one movie after another... this is the first Bond film to act as a sequel. By the end of it you realize that Bond does indeed have empathy for others... he rescued the girl, he left the villain in the desert to die not by Bond's hands, and he allowed Vesper's ex to live and be taken into custody. Though he realizes who he is and what he was born to be. This is the first time Bond has been in love, and it doesn't change him in the end... it only strengthens who he is at the core. I love the way he instructed the one girl to the bedroom by saying "help me find the stationary"... so Bond. And the final fight with the fire was cinematic at least. The Bolivian general was extremely convincing as a sexual deviant. My only complaint is that M goes from not trusting Bond yo trusting Bond way too quickly... it would have been better if she didnt question her own loyalty to Bond si much. I have watched every Bond movie back to back before this.... Daniel Craig is perfect for the modern Bond. Casino Royale laid the framework and Quantum of Solace gave us a deep explanation of who the new Bond really is. This movie needs a higher rating.
6/10
Quantum of Solace
freewillyfan1 November 2019
Quantum of Solace is the second Daniel Craig film and is in my opinion his worst. I don't hate it, but it's not great. First the villain is bad and the Bond girls aren't great. The plot about the oil was bland and uninteresting. The action is a mix bag. In some scenes it is hard to tell what's going on, but some are fun. I enjoy the foot chase on the rooftops in the beginning. Daniel Craig is still good as Bond. At times this film feels more like a Jason Bourne movie in the way that it is made. Overall it's not great and is forgettable but it has its moments of entertainment.

6.3/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated, Jagged Idea for a Sequel
dilly172524 February 2020
I really like this movie. I've seen it like four times now and just now do I understand it fully. It's a DIRECT, aggressive sequel to Casino Royale and deals with its aftermath in some brilliant ways. You just have to pay close attention. It's also incredibly dark. Has some pretty cool cinematography, even if the movie is decidedly much less stylized than the others. I liked how it treks the globe too, and visits some rare locales.

But what I like most about it was Craig's performance and how human he played Bond. He's a complete wreck after the ending of Casino but never lets it really show. The final scene is so good. A poetic contrast to the end of Casino Royale.

Everyone's biggest problem with this movie is the lack of action and the villains. I think Bond movies are at their best when they use action very sparingly. Why I think Skyfall is a bit overrated. The action scenes in Quantum are OK overall but the opera scene was legitimately breathtaking. Amazing scene and set piece. I'd say it's a contender for the best scene in the entire franchise. As far as villains go, Greene is a contrast to the typical Bond villain, which was a neat idea. He's not disfigured or grandly diabolical, same with Madrano. They're just ruthless public eye dirtbags that really do exist out there.

Big ups to Jeffrey Wright again. Dude is just awesome in this movie and anything he does. I also think Dench had some truly great scenes with Craig.

It's not as exciting or iconic as Casino Royale but it's absolutely not the abomination most people make it to be. I'd say it's an underrated, misunderstood, jagged idea for a sequel.
7/10
Well, lots of people might not like it, but ...
hotfrederick19 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I thought it was great. I am happy it is not a typical Bond. I see a director who is fleshing out a character, hence the quiet bits, with great music. I like the fact that the villain is different; who said they have to confirm to the usual mad hats that are in previous bonds? Yes, Greene is not like the genius ruse in Casino Royale, but it is in context with the how appallingly we are treating this world, and all the short-sighted people going along with it.

I like the fact that Bond did not destroy an Aston Martin to oblivion after driving it for 30 seconds, and that the rest of the cars are beat up or electric, and that a great car does not make a character.

Fields is great (fantastic voice), but what I love the most, after all that, is how Matthis and his girlfriend/wife speak Italian. It is because it can be spoken in such a tone and yet with strength that makes it one of the best languages in the world, and why women love it so much. :)
10/10
The best Bond for non-fanboys
Tricycl23 January 2022
This Bond has everything there is to love about 007 movies (gorgeous women, charm, wit, charisma, humour, exoticism, alcoholism, cold-blooded violence, etc.) and none of what usually ruins it for me (a cartoon story, an apocalyptic villain with a crazy plan and a giant secret base, alien technology gadgets, stunts that defy physics, etc).

I suppose we have the writers' strike to thank for forcing the producers to make a brilliant action movie that keeps things simple instead of the fanciful stories of later movies.

I get that die-hard fans may find its lacking some of the ingredients of the franchise, but for me this is the most enjoyable of all Bonds.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Badly disappointed
richardvobes2 November 2008
I also took my son to see this film and was dreadfully disappointed. Casino Royal was an interesting change to the previous James Bond films and gave us hope for more action and real life grit for the modern audiences. Bond has obtained his 00 status and now I was ready to see him on a mission. But this mission was just a series of story board pieces. Let's do a car chase, an aeroplane piece, a boat chase. The only thing they didn't fit in was a train sequence.

I agree totally with the previous writer that the James Barry theme, the theme for James Bond was absent as was that emotional feeling from the point of view of an audience member of 'Go James Go'. The hero that was James Bond was drained from this movie. He was an angry and aggressive spy for whom I didn't have much affinity with. To be honest, if he had lived or died I wouldn't have minded.

I do think Craig has potential for James Bond. I like the more physical aspect, but this clearly missed. It was a gritty action film with no heart.

As for the story - it sucked big time and so much didn't flow. I can only assume this wasn't a Ian Flemming novel and the title, Quantum of Solace? I may have missed it, but that wasn't explained at all in the film.

For me they have bled the fun and special quality of a James Bond film and as my 13 year old son said, 'I can't be bothered to watch the next one'! And neither can I!
6/10
Quantum of Solace, Good Or Bad
mccurdy6282 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lets be honest, Casino Royale was brilliant. New James Bond, new techniques, new elements, all resulting in the re - emergence of a franchise. The problem with Quantum of solace is simply that it is not a unique film. This is not another unique title from the James Bond Franchise but rather a continuation. Quantum of Solace takes part exactly an hour after the end of Casino Royale. The Film has certain expectations which it fails to fill. As mentioned by others who have posted comment on the film, it does not seem to have the same authenticated feel of the James Bond films. It seems rushed from the start, failing to give us enough insight and time which is usually dedicated to Bond, the central character of the franchise. Rather, it pushes ahead with the story line hoping to captivate us and glue us to our seats from the start with the blaze of rough and blunt action, this much is done spectacularly well. Yet, the film fails to deliver. Afer so long of the franchise, you cannot simply drift away from the main concepts and try to make it unique, too big is the gamble. Craig, is let down not by his acting talent or inability in this film but by the storyline, at the best of times the film seems detached, as if someone stole several parts from a few well known action films and glued them together. Overall, the film is adorned with good action, good actors, let down only by the rush of pace, which seems to be copied from Casino Royale and a push to far from the tell tale signs of a real James Bond film.
7/10
Craig, Daniel Craig...Licensed to thrill...
griffinfinity5 July 2009
In the beginning there is trouble...there's always trouble. Moments into a Bond adventure, we buckle up for a wild ride. When the opening sequences are clever, well planned and preposterous enough, the following ninety minutes usually follows suit.

The plot in a Bond film is nothing more than filler. To elaborate on which ruse is used to set 007 loose is pointless. There has been one thing missing from recent Bond outings though. Namely his nemesis' super powered bodyguard. Gone are the 'Odd Job' and 'Jaws' type henchmen that he had to overcome before saving the earth, and the heaven's above. What we have been seeing in the past two Bond offerings is a healthy dose of 'Parkour' instead.

This is the French acrobatic art of running, leaping, jumping and landing like a cat on any structure available. Parkour is natural propulsion and making use of anything in one's field of vision to keep moving. In Quantum of Solace, Bond puts it to good use. It makes for exciting maneuvers as the action goes up, down and all around. I find its inclusion to be a great boost to natural stunts and leaving CGI where it belongs, in the background and at a minimum.

Audiences are smart enough to know when effects are in play. We have been through the initial 'all green screen' productions and the hyperbole accompanying them. FX have their place, but make it count for something if it has to be used. Blockbusters in the latter half of the last century, namely 'Earthquake', 'Towering Inferno', and 'The Poseidon Adventure' led to the 'Die Hard' franchise. Then the resurgence of comic book characters as Matinée Idols. Bond is not a comic book figure.

Daniel Craig has done a fine job in creating his own version of Bond. He does so while maintaining all the right moves. His is the study of a man with a heavy past, present and by the end of the film, future. He shows just enough emotion, letting his subtle nuances light the character. Craig gives us a more human, a more believable Bond.

Playboy flare is unnecessary for this Bond. He has a natural charisma that doesn't require the facial gestures and randiness of his predecessors. The audience does not have to be hit over the head with Bond's allure. We get it. His romance is simply a compliment to the six vodka source of energy. Bond is mission focused. Sleep must wait. This is the foundation of the way the man does business.

'M' has a beefier role this time out. Dame Judith Dench is spot on. You get the sense that all Bond really needs is his trusty sidekick and vice-versa. 'M' does all this and more for Bond. Ms. Dench speaks volumes with a glance and this film is so much the better with her in it. With much respect to Mr. Craig, she is also the finest actor in the film. I am sure he would agree.

'Quantum of Solace' is a fine companion to 'Casino Royal'. Not the best Bond film, but an interesting study of the character we always want to know just a little better. And in that sense, we have been rewarded through Craig's performance. And we shall continue to seek out this Bond... James Bond.
8/10
There is something horribly efficient about you.
Magenta_Bob1 July 2013
Quantum of Solace continues the Bond franchise's transition into the 21st century that Casino Royale laid the groundwork for (let's be honest, Die Another Day didn't lay anything). With the violence at an all-time high and the camp at a low, this is the film that most resembles a regular action film. In line with that, it's a bit of a departure stylistically too, with the quite extreme high-frequency editing; I didn't clock it but it has to be a good fifteen minutes before we get a shot longer than a couple of seconds. Arguably it's just modern action schlock, but I think the opening segment is probably the most exhilarating ever in a Bond film.

Other terrific action scenes abound. Among others, there's a wonderfully executed and sweeping segment taking place during a performance of Tosca, as well as a brief but really cool hotel elevator scene.

One of the complaints about the film is the bland villain. I have been known to complain about uncharismatic villains as well, but here I think Dominic Greene works perfectly well as a modern, faceless villain whose main attribute is a lack of mannerisms. After all, he is the leader of an organization about which M asks "how can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them?" All in all, I've seen the film three times now and it just gets better each time, and now holds its own among the best of the Bond films. It might trade some of Casino Royale's character development and sensitivity for high-octane action, but it's not without emotional depth; it's just that Bond has now been burnt by the fire and won't go near it again. The emotional theme of the film is getting over deception and loss, and how Bond balances dangerously on the edge while doing so. Quantum of Solace might find him at his most emotionless, merciless and clinical, but also at his most tormented.
2/10
Flat Story and Awful editing
iatse47615 November 2008
I must say that I had very high hopes for this sequel. Unfortunately I left the theatre confused, dizzy, and lost. I felt almost no emotion for any of the characters. The villain and his actions created little in terms of suspense and intrigue. I was optimistic when I found out that Marc Forrester and Roberto Schaeffer were involved in this sequel but in the end I was very let down. I must say that the editing was ultra poor in terms of creating a coherent sequence to understand and enjoy. It was the same editing diarrhea that seems to be the trend for action scenes these days (I.e. Bourne Supremacy). It's almost as if the editing method was used to substitute for what was missing in the cinematography of the film. Everything that I enjoyed from the the Bond series (Especially Casino Royale) was missing from this movie and I hope it doesn't destroy what WAS a good thing.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Off the train
fuelrodx23 November 2019
We were waiting for something really good after Casino Royale cause we were excited, ok? Then it all went under and we're wondering what happened. Please don't ruin my favorite Bond - we finally got a really hopeful icon here. He had a good co star (Olga Kurylenko) but he lost out a little on a plot that didn't contain enough in it to make the movie as gripping as it needed to be.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
waterink25 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and 'M' that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of gray. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he's also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold's unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it's almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding's of terrorism. One can think of 'Syriana', 'Lions For Lambs', 'United 93' and more recently 'The Kite Runner'. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation 'Threadstone', no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and grayer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

But should Ian Fleming's character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in 'The Living Daylights','On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'From Russia With Love' and indeed 'Casino Royale'. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. 'Tomorrow Never Dies', 'Moonraker' and 'Live And Let Die' are good examples of such a Bond.

With 'Quantum Of Solace' however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas 'Casino Royale' was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming's first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis- in a dustbin. His Cambridge past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts. In Fleming's first Bond novel he's already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in 'Quantum Of Solace' MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

All other aspects in Bond's latest installment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond's equal. It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy's, Pussy's, Honey's and Vesper's of the Bond-franchise.

While 'Quantum Of Solace' lacks plot and a good developing storyline --It's one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. 'Quantum Of Solace' is depending way too much on 'Casino Royale's' storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.-- the new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century's Ernst Blofeld.

Unfortunately, 'Quantum Of Solace' will not be an instant classic in the near future. Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter. And that's its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises. James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.0/10.0 Rating as a general action thriller: 6.0/10
6/10
Vesper, you did him wrong!
hollyreneeholt9 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have watched all of the James Bond movies. Every. Single. One. Even the one with George Lazenby, who is the equivalent of a fifth Baldwin because he was in the only movie where James Bond got married. Tracy. Oh, she was great. She was ferocious; she could take on the baddies herself.

Vesper, on the other hand, is a different story altogether. Throughout this entire movie, our beloved 007 isn't quite himself because of her. She died in Casino, but her presence is there throughout the movie. He's going for revenge more than trying to save England.

On top of all that, he doesn't order his dry martini like he usually does (when he seemed pleased with the concoction in "Casino Royale"); and he doesn't get over the fact that she's dead.

I mean, it's like this movie is a part two of Casino Royale! The only plot I saw was "I've gotta kill so-and-so for doing this (or that) to me." The movie should have been called, "Revenge" or "For Vesper."

Let me give you some history. When Tracy died (and James Bond became Timothy Dalton), she was doted on just a little bit. I mean, I know that it's great to see that he has a heart every now and then, but where's Sean Connery when you need him? I mean, I know the role was created for Cary Grant, but both guys are so...suave. While Craig's seems so...brooding. I want the fun-loving, joke-making, dry martini making James Bond back.

In this movie, he looks like crap in the end...and he doesn't get the girl. What the?! AND the only good car is in the beginning. This isn't James Bond. It's Bourne! When he tossed Vesper's necklace, I took this as a sign that he has gotten over her, so I really am looking forward to the next James Bond film...not as much as I was looking forward to this movie, but I do have my fingers crossed.
4/10
Perhaps the Weakest Bond Ever
monticellomeadow-953564 October 2020
What a disappointment! What was wrong with it? Well, it just wasn't "Bond," was it? Sure, the franchise is over 50 years old and certainly creaking. But no gadgets? No Q? The "glamour " locales are Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Bolivia!!!! Come on! Dominic Greene was an insipid villian. Where were the signature vicious henchman? The plot was uninteresting and weak. And the direction was awful, particularly the action sequences that we have come to love. Director Mark Forster must have ADD. In an infuriating and annoying manner, he would cut-and-cut-and-cut (3 seconds - I timed them) every action sequence so they made little sense and gave you no feel for what was going on. (Similar to Paul Greengrass' poor direction of The Bourne Identity.). What a waste. Fortunately the franchise with Daniel Craig was saved by subequent chapters, especially the magnificent Skyfall.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wasted opportunity
GreatnessequalsNicole25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace had a great story leading into it. In execution however, the film was not so great.

The action scenes were too hard to take in as they were edited too quickly and the camera work too close. The result of this was a mess of not being able to see what way is up, sure Bond might be feeling like this but as an audience member I would like to take in the the stunts. The action sequences detracted from Daniel Craig's wonderful acting ability. The scenes however where Craig acted were exceptional and I felt myself being absorbed into the film, something that didn't really happen during the action sequences.

I didn't think the plot was fantastic it was complex and hard to follow. The ending of the film, in my opinion was a bit too sudden. I would have liked to see Bond interrogate Vesper's boyfriend. The last shot however, was a great way to show that Bond had found his "solace".

I know that this film was never going to be as good as Casino Royale however, I was still expecting more. It was a wasted opportunity.

Still, even though I have criticised it, it is still one of the better Bond films I have seen.
3/10
Sheer Disappointment!
bsmcoolguy10 November 2008
The movie starts from where it ends in Casino Royale with a car chase. As the movie unfolds i found its quite similar to other action being released the Bond element was missing with no signature quotes , cars , gadgets etc.I was certainly disappointed with the outcome and would consider it the most bas Bond movie ever.Just because of lack of ingredients a Bond movie has. And in comparison to 'Wanted' the action in this movie is quite mild , and if I just wanted to see a man fighting while running around , I would rather prefer watching Jason Bourne of the Bourne Series. Although there is a bit of humor in the movie but it didn't stand up to the expectations of a 007 lover.

But still you could take the risk to watch if you have ample time.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A worthy sequel to Casino Royale
manitou-full-moon31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale was, without a doubt, the best Bond movie since the days of Sean Connery. It threw out the cheesy puns, gadgets and villain-with-doomsday-device bloat that marred the Brosnan and Moore films, and returned the films to a more basic approach, focusing on the James Bond character rather than explosive pens and invisible cars.

Quantum of Solace continues this approach, and for the most part, it works. It does indeed pick up five minutes after the end of Casino Royale, with Bond (Daniel Craig) being pursued by Mr. White's (Jesper Christensen) bodyguards, as he takes him back to an MI6 safehouse to be interrogated. After a rather traditional opening credits (think girls and guns going off), Bond spends the rest of the film tracking down the Quantum organisation's members and one of them in particular, phony environmentalist businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who plans to monopolize Bolivia's water supply.

Daniel Craig continues to show why he's the best Bond since Connery. He portrays Bond as a cold, ruthless character imagined by Fleming. It's obvious that Bond is still suffering from the events of Casino Royale, and his pursuit of Greene pretty much manages to alienate him from most of his allies and leads to the deaths of several friends. There's not many bad puns, either, although the few that do make it in (remarking that a failed asssassin "reached a dead end") are delivered in a more serious fashion, rather than practically winking at the screen as Brosnan might have.

As for the rest of the characters, M (Judi Dench) seems to spend most of the film exasperated by Bond's vendetta, but manages to flesh out the character quite well, showing how she interacts with the rest of the UK government, and providing a few hints of M's personal life.

Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is a rather atypical Bond girl, focused on her own personal vendetta against deposed dictator General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio). Medrano is rather undeveloped, but Kurylenko's performance is quite refreshing, as she's probably the first Bond girl to be portrayed as being interested in doing something other than jumping Bond sighing "Oh James!" as soon as the end credits roll. Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) doesn't really get much to do, but is the more "traditional" Bond girl in this film. Her oily fate is a clear reference to Goldfinger, but isn't as effective. Personally, I think Arterton might have been better for a reimagined Moneypenny, as Fields is apparently nothing more than a secretary, and you do find yourself wondering why MI6 would send an inexperienced clerk to sort out Bond.

Mathieu Amalric's Greene is a slippery, loathsome character who exhibits the same two-faced nature that many politicians possess these days. He's quite different from the usual scarred villain that Bond confronts, and would prefer to buy out his opponents rather than fighting them. The rather unskilled nature of Amalric makes a refreshing contrast from the physically formidable opponents of previous films, and in an odd way I felt rather sorry for him when he gets the stuffing beaten out of him due to Bond's superior fighting skills.

The film is a lot faster paced than many of the previous ones, with a minimum of "explain the villain's plot" scenes, and instead focusing on spectacular set pieces, such as a rather memorable plane chase, or the impressive explosion of a fancily designed hotel in the film's climax. The fight sequences are well orchestrated, and despite the globetrotting nature of the plot, there's never a moment when you feel bored. In shedding most of the old trappings of Bond, the film manages to still feel fresh after Royale, although it doesn't completely break with tradition.

It still has some of the traditional elements, such as the theme, and yes, the famous gunbarrel sequence. This latter series tradition appears to have been quite mobile in Craig's films: in Royale, it appears as the lead in to the opening credits, and here, it appears at the end of the film before the final credits. I've seen a lot of complaints about this on internet forums, but it didn't bother me personally. I'm guessing that the reason for the ending gunbarrel is that at the end of this film, we're left with a sense that Bond's become the more polished character we know from the other films. The gunbarrel sequence we see here is rather traditional (dots, Bond theme, walk followed by shooting and blood), so I'm guessing they'll stick this at the opening of the next film.

It doesn't manage to be quite as good as Royale, but that comes from the fact that it isn't rebooting a tired series, rather it's continuing in the vein of its predecessor, which isn't a bad thing at all. It's well worth seeing, although if you're one of those "Craig's Not Bond" people, I'd stay away, as the style of Moore and Brosnan seem well and truly a thing of the past.
6/10
this was OK
cloverfieldowns19 November 2008
This really wasn't a bond movie.He didn't say his trademark ''the names bond James Bond".But besides that the bond girl was hot. Olga Kurylenko was a good actress too. And Daniel Craig has a new approach to James Bond.He is one of the best but this movie was not that great but it wasn't bad either. Personally I like Pierce Brosnan the best.My favorite Bond movie is Goldeneye. 6 out of ten.It was good enough.You know I really hated it though? That the villain was not seen dead like they just told bond he died.I wish they showed him dead.The villain was really evil guess.His eyes were creepy. I hope to see Daniel Craig in better Bond films in the future though.This is probably the worst Bond movie ever but it was still good as a movie. I thought it was extremely short for a bond movie.So hopefully Bond 23 will be better.AND if its not i will want another bond actor.So Pierce Brosnan PLEASE COME BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!Daniel Craig you better be better next time in a less boring movie and longer too.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This was a disappointment.
aingmire-2656317 August 2021
Part two of the Daniel Craig series, but more like part boo. This movie is just boring. The movie doesn't have structure and Olga Kurylenko and Mathieu Amalric could have acted a whole lot better. A huge let and step down from the first.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining, but not as good at Casino Royal
nikkiten197915 November 2008
"Casino Royal" was sort of a revelation for all the past Bond movies, which showed us what Bond could be. It had a blond, very rugged, flexible, and merciless Bond. The gadgetry was also not as far fetched as the past Bond and we can extract that the newest Bond was trying to lean on being more realistic than fantasy/action.

That said I was very excited to seeing this new "Quantum of Solace" and expected the unexpected, unpredictable, as well as some of the clichés such as sexy girl on the side... Olga Kurilenko's Camille character should have been that, but she was omnipresent and barely an accessory in the movie. From the trailers and all the focus we got on her i'd have expected more of her - like Eva Greene and Halle Berry did. I expected her to be Bond's "necessary" object of attraction - necessary for his mission, but I might have been wanting too much. I might have been feeling too nostalgic of the old Bond movies where Bond is always paired with sexy "ladies" and those unnecessary, but fun, sexy settings. What has happened to that? Was this "Bond Ultimatum" or "James Bourne"? There are many things I like/love about the movie though - the action was non-stop, Daniel Craig is insanely good and very believable as an angry, cold blooded agent... amid the mess of what was going in on like being in a maze, once in a while you'd feel like you were near understanding what was going in on... but let's not forget Judy Dench who is always an unbelievable actress and even better looking than ever.

and more running around, fighting, and running - no talking, just killing, and somehow being 3 steps ahead of everyone. That's how Bond seems to be - well he is an agent, i guess, and he's different...(?) What this Bond missed was a substantial story. The character development seemed halfway there, but rushed and wrapped at the speed of light.

The fact that an hour and ten minutes (maybe even 43 seconds later) i started wondering when it would be over wasn't a great sign. I give it a "too generous" 7 because it was still a very good movie and if "Casino Royale" hadn't set the bar for it... it would have been great.
10/10
Fast and faster
mmcmssawnuc16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The opening scenes don't grab you quite as hard as "CASINO ROYALE", but does get your blood pumping. All of the action scenes in the movie are incredibly fast. Very difficult to follow without a replay/rewind feature. (It could just be me). The water chase scene ends very abruptly with an anchor or grappling hook, but I could not follow what it got hooked to.

I really like the more emotional aspect of the movie. No drama or heart ache, just emotion. Vespa is still at the front of Bond's thoughts (or so everyone tells him). The new Bond girls are beautiful, smart and capable.

I don't often go to the movies on opening weekend, but suffered through the long line and the packed theater to see this one. It was worth the effort.
5/10
The cameras were shaken but the audience not stirred.
knapp-1015 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I agree as many that the MTV style of frenetic direction is annoying. I've just believed that it was a factor of my age since I've been around for all of the Bond movies if that's a hint.

That being said, the biggest problem with this movie for me was the absolutely unwarranted and incorrectly portrayed attack on renewable energy. In this case - a solar/hydrogen system to produce electricity for a hotel.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the oil industry helped finance this movie. The comment about fuel cell noise being a pain (ridiculous) and then showing hydrogen tanks being exploded with yellow/orange soot filled flames was foolish. Anyone with first year science knowledge knows that hydrogen when burning during the day doesn't have a visible flame. It certainly isn't the massive cloud like flames that have been used in every action movie's explosive scenes since the dawn of time. That part of the movie went beyond ridiculous.

Also like others I hated the song but I watched the movie and walked away thinking that it wasn't great but not terrible, so justified my expense of seeing it on the big screen and was an enjoyable evening out with my wife.
7/10
Decent movie, but sadly not as good as Casino Royale.
zachmosley16 August 2021
I like this movie, but not as much as Casino Royale. The action was good but some of the editing of the action was a bit poor and some of the pacing in the middle was a bit slow. I thought Dominic Greene was a disappointing villain after the awesome Le Chiffre. Camille (the Bond girl) is cute and likeable as well. Overall I thought it was a good movie.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Eplogue to Casino Royale, with a random villain thrown in for good measure.
lethalweapon13 November 2008
I'm sorry this review got delayed like this. I should have written about this last week, but I was busy getting murdered by office work. I knew you'd understand.

As all Bond fans know, Bond has been rebooted since 2006's "Casino Royale". Bond is bigger, meaner, grittier, and doesn't smile much anymore. He has retired his quick quips and fancy comebacks, traded in his ejector-seat like gadgets and the wizardry department, 'Q', for sturdier plots and darker shades. He's no longer required to bed every woman that pops out from the corner of the screen, and that gives him time to focus on his missions.

I do miss the old Bond. The raised eyebrows, the insane gadgets, the colorful villains, the larger than life action scenes and the double entendres that the writers graciously pepper all around the script. But I was pleasantly surprised how I liked the new version too. Casino Royale was the best possible way to get the new Bond rolling.

And Quantum of Solace does not disappoint. I didn't expect it to overshadow it's predecessor, and I was right. It didn't. As the shortest Bond movie ever made, QoS seems more like an epilogue to Casino Royale. The movie starts off right from the tail of the last one, and it is almost certain that people who haven't seen the predecessor would probably spend their time chewing their fingernails in abstract confusion.

We start off with a car chase that ends with the trademark Bond finesse, which basically reduces the pristine Auston Martin DBS into premium rubble. The better part of the plot revolves around an embittered Bond seeking revenge over his murdered fiancé, Vesper Lynd, and the systematic discovery and research on the mysterious and sinister organization called Quantum, which, you would have to admit, sounds way more cooler than the nemesis from the original franchise, S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

I usually try to hide the fact that S.P.E.C.T.R.E. stood for 'Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion'. The name was a hidden shame to all of us Bond fanatics out there, though we wouldn't admit it under heavy torture. It must have been a pretty screwed up team who decided to opt for a name that had the words 'Counter-Intelligence' prominently lit up. Maybe the executives weren't intelligent enough to understand what it meant. I don't know.

The new Bond doesn't use the iconic catchphrase 'The name's Bond, James Bond', anymore. Neither do we see his unstirring devotion to the shaken vodka martini. Instead, we are treated to the cold brutal assassin who interrogates his targets only after vital vocal chords are removed. We are shown that M disapproves of this tactic, possibly because of the practical difficulties in getting information from dead leads. But Bond continues to leave a trail that seems to challenge the grim reaper; everything he touches seems to wind up dead, including cars, planes, bikes, confidantes, lovers, and his career at MI6, though just for a short while.

This is a Bond that bleeds, looks grim, and gets dirty after crashing his plane in the desert. The added touch of vulnerability makes the character easier to relate to and brings a new aura of tension to the movie experience.

At the center of the current plot, we see a rogue environmentalist group seeking to control utility supply for a proposed new nation. Excited? Yeah, neither was I. Sure, this was disappointing, but this ultra-thin plot left a lot of room for very engaging subplots centered around Quantum, and I'm already getting impatient for the next installment.

James Bond, meanwhile, seems to have picked up tips from his distant cousin, Jason Bourne. Foot chases on old terraces, jumping through glass windows to get to the the next apartment, rapid adaptation to environment, and cameramen who gets shaken and stirred during the action scenes all add a Bourne touch to Bond, and it suits the mood of the new Bond setting.

We are treated to a few memorable chases, unfortunately balanced by a few weak ones. By the end of the movie, our debonair agent has of course, thwarted the villain, regained public favor of his boss, M, unlocked a few clues to Quantum, and expanded the dossier on items blown up.

Granted, the central plot was thin, but I thoroughly enjoyed this installment, and I'm hungry for more. I'll give it a 3.5 out of a 5, and keep a look out for the next 007 installment. But until then, maybe I'll go stand in line for another watch of QoS.
8/10
Focus on the film not the legend
dkp-32 November 2008
I think the problem here is that a lot of people are either bemoaning QoS because of its lack of Bond elements and because it is not as good as Casino Royale. This isn't really the best way to approach a film is it? I take on board the too fast - too close editing and the fast forward travelogue style of the film, but overall this is a really gripping film. Casino Royale was successful partly because it followed a run of tired Bond cliché's and Daniel Craig was not deemed suitable by many as a successor to Brosnan (unbelievable now). QoS is never going to have that same surprise element as CR, but it does exactly what it said it would, it has continued in the same gritty no holds barred style. To re-introduce Q, Moneypenny and unbelievable gadgets would be redundant now, they would be a parody of former glories from a time when they were a novelty, nothing more. Even M's interactive Minority Report style "table" in QoS jars a little and seems a step too close to the days of Q - and pointless. I am also puzzled by claims that we don't get to know much about Bond's character in the film, when we do. The action does dominate about the first third of the film, but we do get to know Bond sufficiently after that for what is essentially an action film. The final segments particularly reveal a great deal about his character. For the very first time with CR, I totally bought into the romance story, and I was so glad to see a lack of one in QoS, what would be the point. His one sexual encounter proves that he is still the Bond we expect and love, but there are no deep feelings yet, Vesper's still fresh in her grave. My only concession to the bring back our Bond campaigners would be for the return of the gun barrel opening. Through all Bond's many changes, yes this has happened before (OHMSS, FYEO), the opening gunshot has remained a welcome constant, and unlike Q, Moneypenny and gadgets, it has not become dated. It did work at the end of QoS but would have been much better placed at the start where it belongs. Watch it again people, not as a Bourne imitation or a poor relation to its predecessor, but as a good Bond movie that finally puts the hard hearted bastard that Ian Fleming envisaged on the screen.
10/10
An Illiberal Bond for the Masses
silas-shaw16 November 2008
Listen to me. Quantum of Solace is a brilliant, complex thriller. The film speaks to globalization, transnational capital, class disparity, corruption, and paranoia. The strategy of speed, location, and fragmentation underscores this theme. Absolutely breathtaking. Roger Ebert argues that Bond must "stand above" the darkness in our world. I feel that Quantum of Solace consciously resists that (liberal) ideology. Other critics say that they like the "new Bond," but only in terms of changes to the protagonist, e.g., Craig's Bond is more psychologically complex than Connery's and Moore's. Yet why can't the Bond project be politically complex? This film goes beyond espionage and despotic fantasy and instead calls attention to corruption at the highest level (legislative, military, corporate) as well as critiques philanthropy, "rights," and other strategies complicit with status quo politics, all in a very real yet Bond-like way.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An alright Bond film
lukecon-6343622 January 2021
This film was not a complete misfire for me. I actually enjoyed it, and had a really good time watching it. I felt it was very entertaining and overall rewarding in the end. But, this review would still not be complete without mentioning the film's flaws. But, let's start off with the pros:

Pros: The film was very entertaining for me, and I really enjoyed watching it. Other than the fact that it was enjoyable, I did also like the fact that it explored Bond's darker side--as a more ruthless and tough Bond, rather than your typical heroic Bond. This was an interesting aspect of the story that I really liked. Cons: However, the main problem I had with the film was the camerawork and editing. These two aspects of the film were very messily done, and I didn't like the fact that it was difficult to understand what was going on since the camera was moving in a very shaky and disorganized fashion. Sometimes, the editing was a bit too choppy as well. Yes, the film was a bit complicated, but the puzzle was then solved later, which was at least satisfying for me.

Overall, this is a pretty good Bond film, while not the best.
8/10
Bond is Back!
hannah8700-118 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although not as good as the first, this latest Bond is just as good and equally entertaining. Once again Daniel Craig delivers yet another phenomenal performance as the gorgeous and sexy, blue-eyed James Bond. No other actor has truly transformed himself into the role of James Bond as Craig can. He is "Bond. James Bond!" In "Quantum" the plot picks right up where "Casino Royale" left off with 007 searching for the people behind the organization responsible for the death of his love, Vesper. In the beginning Bond is consumed by his grief and allows himself to be guided by his rage and anger. He doesn't care what he does or who he hurts, including himself. In the midst of his ventures he tangles with Camille, a young woman caught in the middle of a conspiracy, behind which is our villain, Dominic Greene and Bolivia's corrupt government officials. Although not a typical "Bond Girl," Olga Kurylenko also did a fine job in fulfilling her role in the film. The two had somewhat of a connection, especially noted in that second to last scene. The ending was excellent and quite unexpected, adding to the overall suspense and action of the film. All in all, Bond finally found what he was looking for- answers. It was then that he finally realized too that Vesper did not betray him and that she truly loved him. There was also a hint of a third in this new Bond series. If so, I eagerly await and anticipate its return. A must see!
9/10
The Best non-Fleming Bond movie
standish779 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The biggest mystery about Quantum of Solace is why are there so many negative comments about it? Yes, the editing of the action scenes is at times too fast paced and difficult to follow. Yes, there is a lot of action. But this is a James Bond film...how can you possibly have too much action?! Quantum of Solace is far more entertaining that Casino Royale...though of course the latter is a better film in terms of characterization and story. However, we are forgetting that Casino Royale was based on an original novel by Ian Fleming (as were the classic Connery films). Quantum of Solace is a completely original story and it certainly is the best non-Fleming film. It makes me cringe now even thinking about the Pierce Brosnan era of films. With Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig continues to give a top-notch performance. His Bond is brutal, bitter and one hell of a nasty guy. You just wouldn't want to mess with him. This is as close to the original Ian Fleming Bond that you are going to get. Yes...there are comparisons with Timothy Dalton's serious approach. But what Dalton was lacking was real charm and charisma...and Craig definitely has this! The movie is a direct continuation of Casino Royale...but it is a completely different movie. Much shorter, much faster and altogether more grittier. Bond is simply angry...and on a mission to kill. He kills whoever gets in his way...which becomes a running joke between him and M (the ever excellent Judi Dench). He is simply out for the revenge for the death of Vesper. Nothing will stop in his way.

The film introduces us to the concept of a secret organization known as Quantum. This is reminiscent of SPECTRE from the early films. In one great scene, we realize the extent of the organization as one by one key villains are revealed during a performance of Tosca. Marc Foster's art-house vision is notably evident in this scene as Bond fights his way out of the opera house, edited in cuts with the similar operatic scene taking place on stage. A brilliantly executed sequence.

Quantum of Solace feels different to other Bonds...and this may be why some people have reservations about it. Gone are the gadgets and the dodgy CGI action (from Die Another Die). But there is still some humor (no cheesy one liners...but more subtle sarcasm which really fits well with the tone of the film). The story is not as complicated as everyone makes it out to be...but one word of warning...DO WATCH CASINO ROYALE BEFOREHAND, otherwise it could be a little hard to follow.

Overall, this is one hell of a ride...and quite simply one of the best Bond films ever!
8/10
Very good follow up
Ladypunch15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This exactly the follow up I wanted for Casino Royale. We see the traditional opening credits for a Bond Movie and watch as Bond takes on fully the role of the uber-spy we have all grown to love.

The action is shot with a tight camera as opposed to the wide shots we saw in Casino Royale. That makes the action up close and in touch with the very personal nature of Bond's mission.

I appreciate that not all of the clues are pushed out in the open, but left to conjecture, or to surface when appropriate for the plot.

I'm going to watch Casino Royale with a Vesper martini tonight whilst I wait impatiently for Quantum of Solace to come to DVD and for the next movie to be released.

Sean Connery will always be my favorite Bond, and Daniel Craig is second only by a very finely shaved whisker.
7/10
It's Bond, but not at his greatest.
Astralan16 November 2008
Quantum of Solace would leave some fans of the last addition, Casino Royal somewhat disappointed. Quantum picks up shortly after where Casino ends, and if you like explosives and chase scenes you will not be disappointed. They have car chases, boat chases, plane chases, foot chases... WHEW!! I was out of breath after the opening sequences. For me, it was akin to Shoot Em Up, but without the humor that Shoot Em Up carried. All in all, it was a fabulous midway ride, but for me it just lacked something.

The all new Bond (Daniel Craig) slowly brings you to the bad guy's focus way into the movie, but it's not really the plot. The plot is that there is a need for closure from the death of Vesper that he wants to deny almost to the closing. Otherwise, there are a lot of politics and environmental observations that play out like a Washington video game. Mathieu Amalric makes his English debut (Mathieu is a veteran French actor with scored of film to his credit) as the arch villain. He brings a certain charm that sometimes makes the Bond character look stoneish. The "Bond Girl" Olga Kurylenko who also comes from French cinema and TV via the Ukraine, made her English debut in Hit-man and more recently Max Payne.

I did have problems with this film though. I couldn't give it a thumbs up for two faults I found in it's production and modeling: 1. The action sequences are edited in such short clips I found these segments hard to watch. Had the director (Marc Forster, an interesting choice seeing he has mainly done tamer films such as Kite Runner and Stranger Than Fiction) restrained the quickly formatted segments to allow for a little more devoted seconds, it could be easier to watch. I am not criticizing the scenes; contrary. I thought they were excellent. I would have just liked a little bit more time to be able to digest the action sequences so I could remember them better. The second problem I had was Bond himself. I know he was hurting and in denial, but for the most part he was just too stony. I had a hard time developing much sympathy for him.

But the film was well worth the price of admission. I went to see it once and then took my wife to see it again, so that in its self is a testimony to the production. The crowd was uncommonly quiet for a theater usually filled only to about 2/3rds capacity. We had to glare at some local spectators to get them to shut up, but eventually the movie took hold and you were flying down the rails of a cool roller coaster. -B
8/10
Impressive 21st Century Bond
ashsdarr4 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have followed the bond series due the fact that every generation of my family were die hard fanatics and I was fortunate to view all of em. Let me start of by saying that Goldfinger is my favourite but i know its not the critical best, that honour might go to Dr NO or even From Russia with Love. Although being a fan of all Bond films ,they never really had main stream appeal for viewers of my generation. I mean also being an avid action fan i revel in the viewing of close hand to hand combat, which i am glad to say, bond has finally got a grasp on, unlike the previous guys who mostly wrestled their opponents. This movie is current, fast, gritty and relentless. I say relentless because Daniel Craig comes across as a no nonsense goal orientated secret agent with no ditraction to his final goal, finding Vesper's killer. The chase scenes (both car and foot) were magnificent. I am glad there were many close up edits of Bond during these proving that Daniel Craig was very much involved in the stunts. People are complaining about the lack of bond "charm", to all of you, please remember that this is early bond, almost newly recruited, so there is still a little bit of character development before the bond we know arises from his youthful recruitment, if you catch my drift. What i did find odd and lil disappointing is the fact there were limited gadgets involved.

All in all an excellent ride for action/bond fans. 8/10
1/10
Nonsensical, definitely not entertaining
hjameswatts31 December 2020
If you love killing, explosions, and totally inane plot that leaves you wondering why you started watching......this is it. Gratuitous violence, silly scenes, unfathomable ending.....all in one film that makes you wonder why you didn't choose a better movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond With Character Development
sigits5 November 2008
Do you feel the era is changing? Well in movies I do. It looks like this era that we're living now requires different habit, different way of living, different behavior, and perhaps different style of idols, compare to the past. Actually it's not even in the past yet. It's just around the corner.

That's what Hollywood recently kept doing. They feel that Bruce Wayne or Batman needs some refreshments. So they restarted the franchise with Batman Begins. It told the story of how Bruce Wayne began his life as Batman. We saw different perspective in Bruce Wayne character. It's more realistic than before. They continue their new style in The Dark Knight.

They also restarted the franchise of James Bond. Not only that they chose different actor, Daniel Craig, replacing Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. They also restarted the story with Casino Royale. James Bond with Daniel Craig at the helm showing totally different aspects of character compare to previous Bonds. Casino Royale showed us the darker and raw character of James Bond that never seen before.

I guess I can say that Daniel Craig represents James Bond that really fits in the new era. His charm is quite different compare to his predecessors. He's handsome, that's obvious. But he also has something different. He showed us how to play hard ball in a hard manner. And he's less flirty. It's now part of his unique character. It's not the thing that previous Bonds used to do or have.

Bond character setup in Casino Royale proved to be right in the next movie, Quantum of Solace. The audiences could see how the character is being developed in Quantum of Solace. Those raw and hard manner character from unexperienced Bond in Casino Royale eventually finds its lessons here. Bond learns how to get mature. How to deal with his emotional character. And the most importantly, how to walk the path to be a great and legendary 007 agent of MI6.

I'm not gonna say anything about the action sequences. Because there are too many standard action movies in the last several years sometimes it makes me wonder which one truly stands out to others. I will only say that Quantum of Solace has good action sequences. But not great. So it's not really special.

My most negative feedback about the action sequences is it seems that Hollywood use very fast editing technique too much. It's not enjoyable. Once you blink your eyes than you're gonna miss it. I believe Marc Forster, the director, better tried to approach these action sequences in more "old-fashioned" way. I'm pretty sure that the audiences love to see the "full frontal" explosions, chasing cars, and fighting sequences.

Another thing that made me bit disappointed is that the latest Bond movies tend to leave the historical known characteristic of Bond movies. In Quantum of Solace I felt like I was watching Bourne's movie instead of Bond's. I know that these 2 movies are the restart of the franchise. Different approach on the character is good. But hopefully different approach on the style of the movie will stop here in Quantum of Solace.

Still, for me Quantum of Solace is a must see movie. Not because it's a great action flick. But because it's a James Bond movie with character development in it. Bond character in Quantum of Solace is not a finished article. Not yet. Perhaps it's gonna be in the 3rd movie. But I really hope that the producers and director won't be in such a hurry to finish the "new" Bond character development in the next one.
4/10
Disappointing
livicrazy15 November 2008
Ultimately I was disappointed. Thought the action scenes were well done, but there we far far far too many of them, to the level where they just became boring. Thought the story was bland, the bad guy a non-entity and the dialogue poor.

I thought Craig's performance in Casino Royale was poor, but in this he was truly awful, his facial expression never changed once, neither did his tone of voice.

All the one liners (an essential of Bond) were done by M, the one done by Bond, got a slight snigger out of one person in the entire cinema.

An awful Bond song. The filming was annoying, changing angles too much.

Overall there have been a few bad films down the Bond years, but for me this is by far the worst of the lot. All I can say is its time for Broccoli and her team to go before they completely ruin the Bond franchise.

If this was an ordinary action film, I would say it was average, as a Bond, it was just awful, there was nothing Bond about it, just a typical mediocre action film.
3/10
Incredibly disappointing
bevandsteve-11 November 2008
Perhaps it could never have lived up to the hype, but the film was incredibly disappointing. From the disjointed, even confused, storyline to the poor editing the film never wowed as it could and should have done.

The script really needed pepping up and while a departure from an established theme can seem daring and exciting, in this instance the audience were left wanting more of the old and less of the new.

No humour, no gadgets, no sexual frisson, no story line. No James Bond - just a miserable-looking, grumpily-muttering, humourless Daniel Craig looking bored and weary as he is filmed driving cars, running across roof tops, killing people, racing boats, flying planes, and then walking across a desert. Yawn. Yawn. Even he doesn't seem convinced by himself to even ask for a Shaken-not-stirred, or to do the eyebrow. Bring back Pierce. Bring back Sean. Bring back even Roger. But dump the dirty blond.

One last thing - it is critical to have a deep understanding of Casino Royale to be able to fathom even the slightest part of the plot.
7/10
Bond got what he was looking for
nachiketbhagwat23 January 2021
And that was some retribution.

This Bond is looking to be less interested in getting intelligence and more interested in hurting someone. He is an assassin on the loose and extremely dangerous. This is not the bond of 80s and 90s with quick puns and sleazy behavior, but he can charm the woman by being this dangerous assassin persona.

The most important thing to understand this movie is to watch Casino Royale first. The characters like Vesper, Mathis and CIA agent Felix Leiter will keep getting mentioned throughout the movie. It's not good that you go to theatre to watch a movie and understanding an entire half is missing.

The action sequences are shot and edited very poorly. All scenes are shot in shaky camera fashion which is never great. Contrary to this in Casino Royale, the action sequences had more going for them.

Apart from these issues, it's solidly made Bond movie. The character evolved more in 2 movies than in 40 years before. This is what DC wanted their Superman to be, a little dark, human. But it's done with typical Bond fashion, where you are not totally distracted by the gruesome scenes.

Final payoff is not the best but definitely good enough. Bond got what we didn't expect for him to get. A quantum of solace.
6/10
This Film Left Me Shaken, But Not Stirred.
mprescott-216 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For me this was like watching a big budget version of Spooks (UK TV Series). Weak plot, with some flaws and as some other reviewers have said; over designed scenes with extravagant special effects for the sake of it (the falling through the church roof window is ridiculous in my opinion).

Whilst I enjoy a decent action movie (and this is just that), I really do feel we haven't quite captured the Bond glory years (maybe the makers aren't trying to and I know its supposed to be just like the book!!), but for me, Bond was all about the gadgets, the girls, the cheesy one liners and the villains with one eye, steel teeth or a blade-rimmed hat!!. I also cant believe he never says "shaken not stirred" once in the whole film! The classic days of Bond had some simple, repetitive, but effective ingredients that made it the iconic movie series that it is today. Its just a shame some of this couldn't be rekindled to please us "old school bondites"!
5/10
Underwhelming
richardcwhite4 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me briefly preface this review: besides a fleeting amusement that most American males my age had in 1997 (I was twelve at the time) for the Bond series thanks to a sensational Nintendo 64 game called GoldenEye 007, I've never really been that interested in old Bond, James Bond. Spy novels have never captivated me and the movies all seemed a little too kitsch. I've watched a few, and I usually get what I expect: some nice cars, some one-liners, good-looking girls, maybe some sneaking, and, of course, explosions. I might as well be watching The Italian Job or The Mummy series or any other depthless action film.

But apparently the guys behind Bond realized this and that's why this film's predecessor, Casino Royale, was "reboot" of the film series, casting away the past and being reborn with a teeth-clenched Daniel Craig. They lost the one-liners, the gadgets, the bimbos, slowed down the pace, examined the emotional depth behind James Bond, and made an exceptional film. Casino Royale is easily one of top 10 favorite movies. The bar was set and the "new" Bond movies were sure to just as outstanding. Unfortunately, this review is not about Casino Royale, it's about Quantum of Solace, and the bar was set too high. So, without further ado:

How underwhelming this film was. After such a great restart of the series, they decided to go back to making sub-par Bond movies again. Granted, it wasn't exactly the old Bond again They were still missing the gadgets and the "shaken, not stirred", but they put back in all the ridiculousness, over-the-topness, bimbos, and mindless henchmen. Then they decided they wanted to be more like the other recently successful spy movie series, and shook the camera like their lives depended on it à la The Bourne Ultimatum. Personally, I like that type of documentary-style camera work that Saving Private Ryan made so popular, but this was excessive.

To highlight the absurdity of this film, in Quantum of Solace there is a scene depicting a dogfight between a World War II-era C-47 and a modern fighter, culminating in Bond and his forgettable girl ditching the plane (after successfully out-maneuvering the fighter) and pulling their 'chute at the last second before hitting the ground with bone-shattering force. While some might argue that it was a necessary scene because it revealed to the audience the bad guys' dastardly plot, what this scene really does is capture the essence of this installment of the Bond franchise: pointless and over the top. It wasn't even exciting, it was just unbelievable, and enough so to make me unsuspend disbelief and stop enjoying the movie experience.

This film just didn't have anything to it, besides bad writing and bad directing. Everything that made Casino Royale great, besides Daniel Craig, simply wasn't in this film. Avoid this film unless you're a die-hard Bond fan, in which case you're used to this kind of nonsense.
6/10
Solid follow up to Casino Royale. Nothing More.
joben-525-63394610 November 2012
After half an hour you will be gasping for air due to the shear exhilaration and pacing of the opening sequences.

Immediately following on from the exciting 'Casino Royale' climax we open proceedings with a superbly choreographed car chase, before a classic Bond-versus-antagonist chase scene and already you are licking your lips ferociously. However, with so many strands the plot could divert into - the eventual settled story-line feels a little safe and one-dimensional instead of a more complex plot line revolving around the intriguing 'Quantum' organisation.

Mathieu Amalric is sinister and ruthless businessman Dominic Green who becomes a target of a Craig's British MI 6 agent who is 'blinded by revenge' following events in predecessor 'Casino Royale.' Amalric and Craig are equally impressive and the film only falters significantly in the fact that 'Casino Royale' was such a hard film to follow up from.

Having said that, all Bond movies should set themselves high standards and remember they are part of a classic franchise which originated through author Ian Fleming. It is a hugely respected franchise - expanding over so many decades and we shouldn't be viewing films in the collection as decent action flicks. They used to be valued higher.
9/10
The modern old Bond tale.
rich-8991 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went into The Quantum of Solace expecting a lot. Especially after the ending the the incredible Casino Royale. And bluntly it didn't disappoint. This film was all about non stop action!! From start to finish it was fast paced, thrilling, sharp witted and even without again money penny and Q it still felt like the days when they were even around!! There were also scenes that reminded viewers of previous films. The dog fight of planes can be compared to Tomorrow Never Dies and the death of Fields was obviously a reminder of Goldfinger!! The film even still managed to look into the depth of Bond and the weight of Vipers death he still carries with him. This was shown through the relationship of M and Bond, and Judi Dench must be mentioned here as her performance as M was one of the best I've ever seen! She was cold, warm, trusting and unforgiving all at the same time. The day she is no longer M is going to be a very sad day. Daniel Craig as ever was brilliant!! Setting up a very anticipated sequel. My only flaw with the film was the fact that maybe it was occasionally over paced. There were points where u needed to catch up with it!! I blame this though on the camera work!! But in the end it felt like a proper Bond Spy film, and one scene i believe shows this and that is the scene of the opera. So go see this awesome film!!
6/10
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
radioheadrcm1 July 2010
In this latest Bond offering, the world leaders are dividing up South America for oil. It's crooked business, but no one seems to mind, because hey, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. James Bond enters the picture with considerable strength, frenetically whipping through Italy with his trademark silver Aston Martin, evading the ever-present gang of minions set on him like mindless hounds. These are the moments when Quantum of Solace is most engaging: when the characters are silently bounding through these vague streets, tunnels, and rooftops, and are completely focused on the task at hand. Indeed, there is almost a poetic relationship between Bond and these nameless thugs.

Unfortunately, once the thrill of the chase dies out, the film begins to taper into a messy experience, where the viewer can't help but feel removed from the vapid plot, the awkward villains, and the ambiguous editing. Throughout the entire film, the longest shot length is perhaps a measly 10 seconds. During action sequences, expect several shots per second. In one shot, we see Bond jump onto a balcony. A second later, we see two split-second shots of him climbing some sort of pipe, and the next time we see him, he's running on a roof. The editing style is easy to criticize, but it's important to note that it isn't completely unintelligible. The viewer may not know the exact details of what is going on, but with a little imagination, following along isn't too difficult.

The plot twists and turns with similar ambiguity. Dominant world figures are introduced, threatening global plots unfold, and treachery seems to loom, but Bond doesn't seem to truly care about such things. With only his obligatory duty to unmask the truth, he instead is wholly focused on a revenge quest which is only loosely connected with the plot of the film. Inevitably, the viewer doesn't care either, and the villain, along with his evil schemes, are lost on the audience.

Luckily, the cast (namely Craig, Dench, and Wright) carry themselves well, and give performances that are as magnetic as ever. So despite a throwaway villain, an anticlimactic structure, and tiresome editing, many pieces of Quantum of Solace do work, and though it may hurt at times, you might just come out of this one smiling anyway.
8/10
The first direct sequel in the Bond Series, and while it isn't perfect it is very fun.
stewiefan20110 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is the 23rd James Bond film in the nearly 50 year old franchise. It picks up directly where its predecessor Casino Royale took off. Bond (the excellent Daniel Craig) has taken Mr. White captive and brought him to be interrogated with M (Judi Dench). White reveals a little information about a secret organization named Quantum, and also hints at what Bond desperately wants to know: Why his deceased lover Vesper betrayed him and ended up dead. However after a series of mishaps White escapes and Bond goes on to his new mission of tracking down a man named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), the supposed leader of Quantum. Greene is a strange man with weery eyes set on the control of a certain important substance. During his mission Bond meets a literally scarred but beautiful girl named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). She is a grieving and tough person just like Bond, since her whole family was killed in a house fire set by the General Medrano, a man involved in Quantum who she vows revenge upon. Bond and Camille team up to uncover the secrets of Quantum and also Dominic Greene, and in the process have to overcome their own problems and grudges.

Quantum of Solace has been a sole disappointment among most loyal Bond fans. It features very little of James Bond's normal traditions in his classic movies. Not once does he say "Bond, James Bond", he doesn't order a specific alcoholic beverage, there's no love scene between him and the Bond girl, and the gun-barrel sequence is saved for the end. However Quantum of Solace features a much more brooding and gritty James Bond instead. While he does use a gun in a few scenes, he engages in much more hand-to-hand combat and also uses a lot more of the environment to his advantage during the fight sequences. To some fans this seems more like a Jason Bourne film than a Bond movie, with scenes of him on rooftops leaping over gaps. The older Bond films with Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan all featured gizmos, gadgets, and villains that had eccentrically extravagant plans to take over the world and/or kill millions of people. Casino Rayale and Quantum of Solace both disposed of the stupid gadgetry, and instead focused on more realistic action and villains that could actually achieve their dastardly plans in real life. I think this is a nice breath of fresh air in the series. Out with the old, in with the new.

The acting in Quantum of Solace is good. Daniel Craig plays a much darker version of Bond with a chip on his shoulder that he has to recover from. Craig gives a mostly strong lead performance although I hope he stops brooding by Bond 23, and grows into a few of the habits of the older Bond movies. Olga Kurylenko also gives a good performance. Her character becomes very developed as the film moves along revealing that her and Bond truly aren't that different. Even though her character awkwardly disappears from the film for a little while until she's needed later on. Mathieu Amalric's performance is pretty standard. He's not a farfetch'd villain but he's not very interesting until we learn what his organization Qunatum is actually up to, and what he's attempting to control. However in the end he does pose a challenge to Bond, unlike most of his cronies who Bond takes out with the wink of an eye.

The visual style was also very interesting in my own opinion. Many fans believed the director Marc Forster wouldn't be fit for a Bond flick, but i think he did quite well. There are some interesting shots and camera angles that are unique for an action flick. Such as when Bond and another bad guy are fighting while swinging around all tangled in rope upside down from scaffolding. As each gets closer to the ground and try to grab the gun lying on the floor, we see lots of uniquely suspenseful upside-down shots of the gun getting closer and farther away as each of them swing towards it, misses it, and swing away from it again. The cinematography also helps bolster the grittiness of the environments, and also puts emphasis on resources that Bond can use during the fight scenes. In one scene Bond meets with another agent, and ends up having 30 seconds to escape. The cinematography and lighting adds a lot of dangerous suspense by revealing the amount of dirt and perspiration there is on each man's face. The only thing that hampered the film, which I really don't enjoy, was the shaky-cam editing. It almost seems like a carbon copy ripoff of Jason Bourne when they do this. Shaky-cam is literally what it sounds like: During the action scenes the camera can't be held still for a second, which is supposed to add to the suspense, but really only annoys. For instance the beginning of the movie involves a huge car chase in a tunnel. The camera is so shaky and the editing of each frame is mostly about one second long each, making it very hard to comprehend anything that's happening.

Quantum of Solace wasn't perfect but then again what Bond film really is? While it goes against the classic rituals of a Bond film, I believe that was only a standalone thing for this film. Bond is brooding over the loss of the woman he loves, and has no desire to do any of those old rituals this time around. Bond's no-nonsense attitude in Quantum of Solace seems to be only a hitch in the road for him, and since he's now over it the next installment can show him taking up the classic rituals the fans whined over. I give Quantum of Solace a 4 out of 5.
8/10
James Bourne
seanmatern20 November 2020
I was reading these reviews before watching it and all the bad ones were saying how the action and editing was horrible, so I was thinking it was like Taken 2 or Taken 3 where it takes 25 jump cuts to show one punch, but that's not the case at all. It's like the Jason Bourne movies and I loved the action and how they did it, all these people complaining about it should stick too rom coms
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
great movie
ninja209-129 November 2008
I walked into the theater didn't expecting much of this film clearly i was wrong. This was one of the best movies i've seen this year. I mean come on it's james bond. WITH A VENGEANCE. The movie just picks up 5 mins after Casino Royale ended and it really opens with a bang. I mean it literally just goes right into the action. There's not much story in this one. In fact i kinda was confused on what it was. But from what i understand Bond was out seekeng revenge on whoever killed his girlfriend Vesper Lynd the main lady from the previous film. And something about bolivias water supply or something but anyway this was one of the more action packed bond flicks. Classic bond fans might be a bit disappointed because most of the bond charm and clichés were taken out but action fans and bond fans alike should still definitely check this movie out. And with the running time of 1 hr and 45 min this is the shortest bond movie to date. But you guys should still give this one a shot. it gets a 8 out of 10 in my book ps olga kurylenko is HOTT ;)
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good, But...
dukevega16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I read recently that given the overall world economic downturn, it might be a while before 007 straps on his Walther PPK again. I hope the time is well-spent on beefing up the storyline of his next outing.

There was no problem with Daniel Craig, he once again put forth a good performance, and he didn't disappear behind the gadgets his predecessors had; as I think about it, there were even fewer gadgets than in "Casino Royale".

As I said, the problem was with the plot. This one picks up right where "Casino Royale" as Bond and MI6 try to learn more about the organization Le Chiffre worked for, and there is also a subplot once again to see if Bond can distance himself emotionally from his assignment.

The subplot works very well as we wonder if Bond's zeal is really just an outlet for revenge, but the main plot doesn't hold up. In this the mysterious organization is going after the water supply of Bolivia, and Bond is aided by Mathis, the turncoat from "Casino Royale".

Now, not to sound callous, but why should we be concerned about the water supply of Bolivia? Yeah, Bolivians dying from thirst, terrible thing, got it, but what will the global effect be? The stakes just aren't high enough.

And what is he doing asking for help from a traitor? In here, it was explained away by Bond and MI6 being wrong about Mathis' disloyalty. But I recall very clearly that Le Chiffre said, "Your friend Mathis...is my friend Mathis." How can that be taken any other way? Sorry, but I just can't give my stamp of approval on this one. Oh, one other thing: the opening song sucked, definitely one of the weakest ones ever.
1/10
I want Brosnan back... :(
jk-31715 December 2008
Reading thru all the comments about this movie, I find myself nodding and saying things like "Yes!" and "Xactly!" out loud, agreeing to every single (negative) post.

I, too, have to admit that a resemblance to the Bourne-Series can not be overlooked here. I, too, think that the directing of this movie is not the worst I've ever seen, but certainly within the top worst 10 of mine.

U guys r right about the loss of character, smartness, humor, storyline, feel, look, acting, "real" villain, M, Q!, gadgets, SOUNDTRACK!!!, opening sequence, one liners, cars ... oh god, I can go on for ever.

There is action, indeed, -loads! But what kind of action??? Certainly it is not Bond-Action we r used to - it is Bourne-Action: fast, deadly and killer-like. Where is the superhuman-like easiness of fighting? The clever and funny comments and one-liners (after "seemingly accidentally" killing someone)? And above all, where is the character?

Sean Connery, Brosnan, even Moore were "real" Bonds - with that special treat of character, smartness, fun and most important, depth, to them - that is ENTIRELY gone now.

Oh...and what ever happened to the skiing we r used to in Bond movies anyway? Didn't it used to be on land, on the water, under water, in snow, in space? Whats happening???

During the opening scene I actually thought I got the wrong movie playing in front of me. I got so annoyed with the music, I honestly considered walking out (-compare that to Golden Eye or Die Another Day).

Cute but shallow, boring women, a villain that seems to simply be bored most of the time and thinks up things to do...where did the earth- and country destroying people go?

It seemed as if they brought back characters from Casino Royale only as hole fillers that extend the running time of the movie (think of the airplane scene of the villain/Cia-guys).

I used to LOVE Bond movies! Even Casino Royale I liked (yes, only liked) after watching it and Craig actually gave us a decent Bond there - but this is by far the worst, lamest, terrible Bond ever made and not worth watching.

I will wait for the next Bond to make it on to the big screen - if it is as bad as this one (or worse) I will seriously cry about the loss. Until then I'll be watching the preceding movies I guess...
6/10
Smooth as Sandpaper
walt-483 December 2008
Its not that I didn't enjoy the movie, I did. It didn't find the movie lacking in acting, directory, story, or action. I just found the movie lacking the "Bond" essence. James Bond is suppose to be smooth and skilled with not only the ladies but with busting up the bad guys. This new bond movie is action, action, action and only pays lip service to the smooth charming side of the bond character. Bond spends so little time out of action its hard to believe he could even be refined. If this was some other action movie I would have given it higher than a 6 rating, but I came to see James Bond do his thing and what you get is "Demolition Man" in a tuxedo.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Don't listen, James Bond is still James Bond.
atreyu415 November 2008
How can people say that this isn't a Bond movie, and that Bond has lost his identity? Having read reviews going into this movie, I was expecting to see nothing but gratuitous, pointless action, and Daniel Craig taking the role in some absurd direction. "Like oh my god him and the director watched the Borne movies too much." (actually I wasn't really expecting this, I was assuming that people "misinterpreted" the direction they took, and I believe I assumed correctly.

So why aren't people satisfied? In the beginning, and constantly throughout the film you have Bond acting callous about Vesper, keeping his cool in front of M, when everybody in the audience knows he cares deeply, even M. This was an element that was set up wonderfully in the first film. also, you have Bond comforting a "Bond girl" after something traumatic has happened, this time around fire and not in water, so we see him show how much he cares. He somewhat hides it again with the other "Bond girl," but he still does show he cares with what he tells M a little later. so where was the mark missed?

The action was a problem? Yeah right. You have a highly trained and vastly intuitive secret agent that I think it's safe to say fell in love for the first time and had that taken away from him... why not go on a "rampage?" in that field of work... in the Bond universe that's how things go. the action was spot on. i liked the camera work, but i admit it was a bit shakier then it needed to be.

Roger Ebert said "Please understand, Bond is not an action hero!" ha. Since when? in the Bond movie's they've just balanced it out with a lot of other elements, and they do that in this film also. people wanted more suave "James Bond" type scenes, yet that was all in this film. the part where he tells her they've got to go to a better hotel, the part on the plane where the bartender describes the Vesper Martini... how he tricks the guys at the opera, and more but i hope you get my point... i may not be explaining it well enough. i think this whole suave Bond element that people seemed to think Q.o.S was missing, was way easier to see in Casino Royal because it was slower paced and a lot of it was done at a poker table, so it stood out more.

but they were moving on from Casino Royal, Bond had some scores to settle, and the motivation came from deep within.

10/10.
8/10
Quantum of Suaveness
sundeepmithran8 November 2008
I just returned back from watching QoS and I must say I was deeply satisfied. Bond not only seemed to be human, but extremely connectible. One thing I did not like about the previous Bonds was the fact that they almost always seemed unassailable. This bond has it all, bleeding noses, head crashed into walls, broken bones, but yet comes out of it, as if he just had a walk in the park. You just cant help but love his matter of factly manner of getting his things done, with not so much of a flinch, but absolute panache and class the way he goes about his job.

QoS takes you to a lot of places, Hiati, Italy, London, Austria among others. The action is extremely fast paced, and there are times you are just left staring at the screen at the fast past action, that after its over, you suddenly realize that your jaw has just dropped of its own accord.

The bond girl isn't strikingly beautiful or anything like that, but she kinda grows on you. So thats OK.

The action is great, daniel is just awesome, and the story is extremely fast paced and gripping.

I loved the movie a great deal, and would highly recommend it to anyone.
8/10
Very Nice Bond Film.
lilhagan31 October 2008
I thought that the bond film had a lot of potentate, with its good fight scenes and funny jokes. This is a typical bond film, but this time its more hands on than any of the others. With bond typical only using a car and a phone, and many guns.

The director has done a very good job with this film and I would certainly watch this again. But if you thinking of watching you should, after all its not HSM3.

The fun of this films comes from the action you a right in there with it, I personally came out and wanted to watch it again.

The camera work is awesome, the film has had some very talented people working on it.

I know a lot of people are saying that its not that good, but you go into that cinema with-an open mind, just think that this is the very first bond movie made.

I promise you that if you do that then you shall come out very happy. But I might add that some things made me laugh with this movie.

But I don't want to add them in because I want to make this spoiler free :)

So in my opinion go and watch this movie.
6/10
Reinvention without new ideas
dasenko-pajovic9 November 2008
I had a great expectation for this Bond movie. Obviously, the changes made Quantum of Solace second rated Bourne movie. The story is okay, but at some points disengaging in fast pacing actions due to cutting corners on rendering. The real locations and local people surroundings were used as the norm, which is great. Lack of surprise gadgetry, is not.

Also, if you want to fully engage in the story of this movie, I strongly recommend to watch the previous Casino Royale.

I suppose I expected too much. James Bond movies were always great place to check on the latest spy innovations and genius wittiness.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Overall, still part of an interesting direction for Bond
slcagnina14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK...I just saw the midnight show preview and I am conflicted.

I'll start with the good:

Craig is awesome as Bond. He wasn't allowed too much humor in this film -- one gets the feeling the makers are self conscious about slipping into the camp style humor that marred late Connery, late Pierce, and all of Roger. But Bond should be witty and sexually sly. Letting Bond have some fun wouldn't necessarily have to be camp. Note to the writers: You don't have to lighten up the story lines, just parts of the story.

As the film progressed, it became clear that the franchise is resurrecting a SPECTRE type of organization -- something for Bond to fight. I don't know if this will continue, but it's working and it gives the villains an added dimension -- you know there's always more to the schemes.

Some critics have lambasted the villain here for not being diabolical enough. Casino Royale established that Bond would not be facing bad guys who want to go into outer space and create a master race. Criticizing the villain for not being camp-bad enough is like criticizing Christopher Nolan for not making Batman lighter and more fun. The series is being truer to Fleming's ideas of Bond. And it's nice to have Felix playing important roles in Bond's missions. Wright is one of the best Felix's yet, and I hope they continue to use him.

Also, the film's plot becomes more involving as it goes along. That was a good thing because:

The bad -- I was afraid it wasn't going to have a plot during the first reel. The criticism of the action scenes is justified; Forster is a talented director, and he may well direct a terrific action picture one day -- but it's obvious he currently is not an action director. Some of the stylistic edits and inter-cutting during the picture are well done. But the big action set pieces are filmed like the Bourne films -- and I hate that style. Time and space and character must be present to make the action suspenseful. Casino Royale did that in spades. Here, the action is discombobulated and that makes the characters involved non-existent. It also makes CGI more noticeable. Casino Royale incorporated CGI in an understated manner, using it to fine tune rather than be center-stage. Bond will never be a CGI action hero -- there will always be a touch of wonderful analog to him, and the producers would do well to remember that action scenes subtly enhanced by CGI are more involving and interesting than ones created mostly or totally from computers; the former serves a story, the latter serves a game console.

The Bourne style of action scenes reminds me of a singer who uses her voice for high notes at every stage during a song; no nuance, no variety, and the impact of her high notes is diminished by the fact there is no contrast. Variety of styles, cuts, shots, and human reaction are all important for action scenes. Just because something is cut in half second shot times doesn't make it exciting.

The Bond girls in the film are not bad -- they don't deserve the advanced negativity I've read. But they aren't great, either. Middle of the pack. They didn't get out of Eva Green's shadow, and this was probably why they got killed in so many reviews. But they're not bad like this: Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones. That's perspective.

I love Craig's Bond's coldness and I like the narrative that's building. This is a good film. It recovers from a shaky start and sets up Bond nicely for another outing. I think bringing Campbell back as director would be a positive. And I hope they don't give in and start making the villains campy nut-cases. Also, I hope they keep Wright as Felix and expand his role next time. But for now, QoS will do. A solid if flawed outing, whose positives usually include the new direction taken for Craig's Bond, and that's a good sign for the future.
6/10
Quantum of Storyline
laughorlove1 November 2008
I loved Casino Royale. It was fast-paced, exciting & featured a truly macho James Bond. It could've been subtitled, "Bond Begins". Brilliant. Quantum of Solace is supposed to be a sequel to Casino Royale & the opening few moments leave you in no doubt of this. The fast-paced excitement of "Casino" continues also with some fantastic stunts & the usual mix of fast cars & violence typical of the new-style Bond. So far, so good. So what went wrong? Those previously mentioned stunts were edited in such a way that Bond seems to have become a fusion of Batman, Flash & Spiderman. The editing techniques used were too sharp leaving the audience no chance to suspend their disbelief at what 007 seems capable of. As with "Casino", we get to see Bond bleed a lot but what we don't see is how he's able to move from one side of the world to another & back so quickly he doesn't have time to change his clothes! As for the story... I can only imagine there must be a "Director's Cut" version of this film knocking around somewhere. A version that will surely be about an hour longer to enable some of the unanswered questions & character developments to be explained. It's not the worst James Bond film, & Daniel Craig is fantastic once more, it's just that plot gives way to too many stunts (yes, I know Bond is famous for stunts) & the film doesn't seem to know whether to follow the radicalization of "Casino Royale" or hark back to the Bond of yore. I heard somewhere that "Quantum of Solace" was faithful to the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation. Aside from a recipe for the famous vodka-martinis, I fail to make that connection myself. Can't wait for the DVD so I can slow the action down & try to make sense of it all!
3/10
Messed up James bond
scubabenj10 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The action was alright, but they messed up the series! Where was Q!?!?!? Where was the big scene with the girl at the end? Why the heck was it still talking about some girl from the movie before? James Bond has been the same age for 20+ movies you can't start connecting the movies together! It won't make any sense!!!! Each film is independent of the others!!!!! The completely dropped the ball!!!! I had hi hopes, but they got smashed!!!!! And i am still wondering what the heck is with a blond James Bond! Have these people ever seen a Bond movie?? I couldn't even believe what I was seeing!!! This is gonna make any true James Bond fans mad, and maybe amuse someone who has never seen a James Bond! I'm sad =....(
5/10
QUANTUM OF SOLACE: What could have been
thefilmlawyers2 November 2015
Alas, what could have been. What was a special opportunity for a franchise not known for establishing continuity between films to do just that was squandered with the second installment of the Daniel Craig 007 Bond series, QUANTUM OF SOLACE. While the film had a myriad of issues that somehow managed to not affect either its predecessor or its successor, the most glaring indictment of Marc Forster's feature Bond film can be best surmised by describing the lead villain: forgettable and a waste of potential.

What made Casino Royale and Skyfall (review coming soon) so exceptional were the fantastic villains employed in each, played respectively by Mads Mikkelson and Javier Bardem. By all accounts, based on his track record alone, we should be in for a treat when Christoph Waltz takes over the role of lead villain in the upcoming Spectre. While Mathieu Amalric is by no means a bad actor (this is a "high" level Bond film, after all), the effect of a poor script and heightened expectations clearly impacted his performance. A commonly glossed over fact is that there was a writers strike that occurred halfway through filming of QOS, which meant that lead star Craig and director Forster had to take over and finish off the script and add in their own pieces of dialogue. To say that impacted the film is being kind; the second half of the film contains a Pierce Brosnan- era plane fight that was just as awful as the noticeably poor CGI used as well as a burning hotel scene that sounds cool in theory but was nowhere near as epic as it could have been. You find out with almost exactly half an hour left what the ultimate goal of the villain – Dominic Greene was his name for those that actually care- was. This served to hammer home just how poor the script was when compared to Casino Royale and the exceptional Skyfall.

As a standalone thriller, Quantum of Solace is an above average and competent film; as a great or good Bond film, it is not. Since it clearly wished to establish the aforementioned continuity, expectations were rightly raised as modern audiences have grown to expect such a concept in their films (the Bourne trilogy was mostly good for this). In a bid to build upon the crushing romantic loss from the first film, the second film aimed to provide Bond with a "lovers quest for revenge" type storyline that somehow managed to move away from what makes a Bond film so unique. Absent was the trademark charm and Bond's suave attitude with the ladies (Gemma Arterton was wasted in a minor role while Olga Kurylenko had no chemistry with Craig), which took this film into "Subpar-Bond flick" territory.

The technical aspects were severely lacking as well. The opening segment of the film post-intro credits sets the stage for what was to follow, a lengthy car chase managed to cut so often that the average time for a single shot was probably close to a second. Think about that for a second. In the second it took you to process that thought, you would have seen a drastic shot jump. The overuse of shaky-cam (I guess the Bourne trilogy was not all perfect for popularizing that fad) was a glaring indictment of the film's editing issues, as compounding said shaky-cam with the aforementioned quick cuts was the best way to illustrate the film's plethora of issues. The score, otherwise excellent in the other Craig films, falls flat as well with no memorable sound segments anywhere throughout the film; "Another way to Die" by Alicia Keys and Jack White may be a good song, but it was a poor choice for a film that needed something at an epic scale to rescue it from its multiple other technical shortcomings. Why else were people so excited for the Skyfall score and soundtrack when it was announced that Adele would be lending her talents to the film? Her titular song fit the theme of the film perfectly and essentially served as a bow on what was an excellent return to form for the series AFTER this… problem.

Speaking of problems, how can one go any further without at least giving a cursory mention as to the plot of this film. For starters, the film was effectively about Bolivian water rights. I will repeat that with added clarity: outside of added "tension" elements such as American involvement (which could have been something more than the footnote it ended up being), the film proved to be about Bond trying to stop a villain that was intent on consolidating rights to Bolivian water. I'm not sure how much more clearly one can explain how a film about an MI6 agent in a series renowned for its internal espionage and high stakes gamesmanship was focused on BOLIVIAN. WATER. RIGHTS.

The acting was serviceable, with there being no memorable performance to speak of. Craig admirably attempts to play a heartbroken yet stoic Bond but even he cannot save the script. Dame Judi Dench was excellent as has become par for the course for her while the duo of Amalric and Kurylenko disappointed; a poor script and undefined character direction can be reasonably argued for the former, but the latter was entirely miscast in her role. After Quantum of Solace and Hit-man (2007) showcased her inability to grasp a leading role, it is little wonder she has not been considered for larger roles in any major films in recent years.

After reading this review, please do not get turned off by the franchise. Rest assured, the series rebounds excellently with Skyfall, for which we shall be airing a review in the coming days. If you are attempting to marathon the series prior to the release of Spectre, avoid watching this film and re-read this review.

After careful consideration, Chulbul Pandey graces this film with a grade of D

http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more
8/10
If you liked "Casino Royale"...
mdhutchins15 November 2008
Then odds are you will like "Quantum of Solace".

The fact is that these two movies are a complete re imagining of the Bond franchise. They focus on the character and the development thereof. They aren't as much about the villains and their huge world altering plots, as they are about the man and the job. It seems to me that this new Bond is young and just starting out. The focus of the opening of the first movie was on his completion of his 00 status. Young Bond, trying to figure out how to be a MI6 hitter and still be a human, a problem that anyone who has ever taken life in combat can sympathize with. This isn't Bond the super hero, it is Bond the broken, seeking redemption. A far more realistic Bond for a era of hyper-real media. And as long as the writing holds to the standard that they have set for it, I will continue to watch and enjoy.

Now, lest you think that I believe this movie to be perfect, a couple of issues. I think I speak for most film goers here when I say, ENOUGH WITH THE SHAKY CAM FIGHT SCENES!!!!! Sorry to shout, but I HATE those things. As a long time student of martial arts, I REALLY appreciate a well choreographed and executed scene, and the shaky cam makes it nearly impossible to follow the action. This leads me to believe that you are filming inferior product in a way to mask it. This is unacceptable, and I nearly left the theater fifteen minutes in, I was so put off. Daniel Craig has the best physicality of any Bond, and it is a shame to hamper him with sub par camera work.

Thankfully once the story began to roll, the characterizations took over and I found myself enjoying it. Second, what the **** is up with the PPK? We now show a freaking holographic display in M's office that shows phone calls, pictures, and the queens own porn collection for all we know, and Bond has stepped back to a gun with half the ammo capacity, and a less powerful cartridge? This makes no sense. His suits get more modern, his car certainly gets more modern (I love Aston, and who in the world thinks there is a Vauxhall out there that could even keep up in that race), but his gun goes the other way.

For those who miss Money penny and Q branch I do to, but this is not your fathers Bond. You don't have to like it or watch it. I enjoy it for some different resons than the earlier films. As for the Bond babes, how does Strawberry Fields not count?

Those are really my major beefs. Otherwise, a well done film and deserving of the high rating.

If you hated Casino Royale don't see it. If you liked it do.
So disappointed
bart-jacher23 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the first bond film that I left without a big explosion-induced smile on my face. The movie is boring yet short. It has action, but it is shot in such a way that you can't tell what is going on. The opening adrenaline inducer always kick-started my lust for fast cars, jumping out of planes and the such. In Quantum they gave the camera to a guy attached to a mechanical bull, put Craig in a great looking car and pressed REC. Oh and that was it for the Aston, all fords from that moment on. In this part of this review i have to vent just a little. The graphics telling us where we are in the world ....really? that was not even close to the classy Bond, it looked like a cheap TV show or video game. THE MOVIE IS ABOUT WATER IN BOLIVIA! now i spoke to some friends of mine and between the 5 of us we care more about the water on MARS... water in Bolivia! Where is Q? Enough with the camera shaking! i get it everything is happening really fast and its all so cool and chaotic! I can't see and i'm getting a seizure! But it is a bond movie and i supported it cause it would be a great shame if both Bond and Craig went out on this flat note.
5/10
Supremely underwhelming entry to the franchise
masonmorgan-929171 May 2017
Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace has been widely regarded as one of the worst Bond films of the entire franchise upon release. Whether or not expectations were too high after the excellent Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is mediocre at best and shockingly amateur at it's worst.

Daniel Craig as Bond is not the issue here. His performance here is strong, as is most of the other cast's, even if the characters aren't fully fleshed out as the previous films. The issue is the convoluted and overly-complicated plot that lacks the emotional heft and character drama that made Royale so good. The Bond girl is boring, the villain is laughable and the tone is all over the place. From a technical standpoint, everything is how it should be. Sadly, the human aspect that gives a Bond film it's character is lacking, making this entry noticeably more hollow than other films of the franchise.

Even the action sequences are hit-or-miss. While the film opens with a rather impressive car chase, the following set-pieces never manage to create even a fraction of suspense or thrills contained in the first 10 minutes. This could be due to the rather shaky direction and overall goofy nature that never quite feels welcome. While Quantum of Solace is certainly watchable and admittedly entertaining at times, the overall lack of substance and memorable drama or thrills makes this entry to the franchise quite hollow. It doesn't have the immense emotional weight of Royale or the spectacular action of Skyfall, and being released between these two excellent films only helps to accentuate the flaws of this one.
8/10
To be, or not to be the James Bond, that is the question
elmo-tiisvald21 November 2008
The Estonian premiere of the latest James Bond movie „Quantum of Solace" took place last Friday, November 7th, 2008. It continues the gripping adventure exactly an hour after the end of „Casino Royal". The Forum Cinema „Coca-Cola Plaza" in Tallinn was full of people with great and certain expectations.

This film tells the story of James Bond cracking down on a corporation, which works with dictators, who like to get a share of precious natural water resources. The second layer of the movie is connected with the previous „Casino Royal", where Bond was betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, whose deaf made „007" mournfully revengeful.

To talk about certain expectations, I primarily think about stylistic element of the old Bond movies: great title song, the lines „Bond. James Bond" or „Shaken, not stirred", beautiful girls coupling with 007, his cars and gadgets and furthermore Bond's vibrating sense of humor. Quntum of Solace is really controversial compared with previous Casino Royal.

Good things at first. Daniel Craig is once again a brilliant Bond, very believable and all the acting was magnificent. His vision of 007 is imposing, brutally unsentimental and close to the original Bond character. Judi Dench is always the reliable grand old lady, but her M. too dominates this time. Camille as a Bond girl was not outstanding, played by Olga Kurylenko, because of plot. Green, the villain, has played extremely well by Mathien Amalric, but it seems that he is just a person with a different character. Other roles are: Mr White and Mathis, played by Jesper Christensen and Giancarlo Gianni. They were excellent when they were on the screen, but they neither had enough screen time.

Secondly, in my humble opinion, the biggest problem is that the narrative is too simple and not unique. Also the camera work on all the action scenes is unstable and often out of control. Furthermore, fast-cut editing provide us with too many barely watchable scenes, like in the opening action sequences. This MTV style for great movie is too cheap. The most curious is that this movie is just an action one with no character development. It is clear that the director and screenwriter are to blame for those weaknesses.

The best scene, IMHO, of the movie is Puccini's opera sequence. The parallel gunfire with Tosca's first act finale is brilliantly synchronized. All actions, motions, gunfires e.g. is grounded by the logic of this powerful music. Another moving scene was Mathis' (Giancarlo Giannini) death. This was touchingly played by Gianni and Craig.

To sum up, all the previous, something is not quite right with the latest Bond movie. Anyway, it's a really good spy movie more then thriller, where Bond firstly is like a Batman, and then more like a Rambo – „killing without blinking". And finally I think, Quantum of Solace is also fairly good action movie so that it is hard to dislike it.

Elmo Tiisvald
9/10
I do not understand why all the bad reviews
UnCritic25 November 2008
If you like a campy Bond where the villain announces his plans before leaving Bond to escape from a death trap, this is not for you.

If you like taut spy movies, this may be for you. The plot is interesting, the action is fun, the movie's pace is quick.

Mind you, the film plays brilliantly with Bond clichés and even makes a dark tribute to Goldfinger.

The best part for me is the acting of Daniel Craig and Judith Dench, and the writing that makes for a great interaction between the characters.

I honestly don't know why it's getting love-it-or-hate-it reviews. The one valid criticism is the done-to-death shaky camera technique, that is at least interspersed with smooth camera angles, making it more palatable than Bourne.

Be sure you see this one for yourself before you dismiss it.
5/10
Mediocre "Bourne" Wannabe
jordansepticeye12 November 2016
This movie is,well disappointing compared to Casino Royale,not as bad as many people say.First,the good,the score and cinematography are still great.The locations are good,and look beautiful.The Bond girl is awesome,it is cool that she doesn't actually fall in love with Bond(given the events of the last film)and her backstory was interesting,I liked how it connected her to the villain.The pacing was decent as well.The biggest pro,the action,while the editing does get bad at times,I personally think that the fast paced editing makes the action more exciting.Now,the cons,while I did like the action in the film,the CGI for the film was awful.The fact that this is a direct sequel,I liked in other films(such as the original Halloween II),here it seems pointless,as no characters have changed since the last movie.Sadly,James Bond himself is one of the problems,he just feels emotionless,all of his charm is lost,he just stands there and kills everyone in his way.The villain,he is barely in it,and while his plan is unique,he is in no way memorable or intimidating.The biggest con,the tone,it feels like a generic action movie,and a Bourne ripoff,so every time humor is attempted,it feels forced,and the movie just seems emotionless.Quantum of Solace is not as bad as you would think based on the reviews as it has a great Bond girl and action scenes,but it has a bad villain,soulless feel,and a bad portrayal of the James Bond character.
9/10
Solid sequel, though not as good as its predecessor.
demoneyeslaharl5 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace takes up where Casino Royale left off, marking this as one of the first real direct sequel to it, and compared meticulously to its previous entry in the James Bond series.

How does it hold up? Pretty well actually.

Everything done in Casino Royale has been given a bigger update for this movie. There are more action sequences almost in every turn, and while none of them are as great as the impressive Parkour chase sequence, it seems Bond has learned a trick or two when it comes to escaping and/or chasing down enemies. He's much less of a 'thug' now, although as cold-blooded as ever, smoother on his actions this time around, and even a bit more loose this time around, poking more fun at his enemies or allies (or himself) in an even manner.

The story here is a bit more expansive than Casino Royale. While this is a good thing, the film suffers from the fluff that continued to appear around the film, which I'll get on later. Its not as simple as MI6 trying to get a "banker for terrorists", but introduces a rather new opponent, Quantum. Remembering Mr. White, and now, Mr. Greene and their operation, and how they claim to have people everywhere, its a bit exciting to see how this organization in the shadows, and according to Mr. White, have people 'everywhere' sets up something akin to SPECTRE in the modern day era.

Unfortunately, this organization has been relatively left untouched, mostly focused on Dominic Greene, who like Mr. White, seems to be working on the up and up for Quantum... and honestly, I thought Le Chiffre was a better bad guy. Greene was the least intimidating person on the film, and even though he put up quite a fight, he didn't put up any long lasting impression. However, considering he also fits the profile as an average looking man IE. not dangerous which most of the Quantum members are , this can be forgivable.

Bond himself is in a crusade, very much becoming a really nasty fellow, but slowly mellows out when he meets Camille Montes, who also like, is on a vengeful quest to kill a certain man. The two share a rather special and unique relationship that no Bond and Bond-girl had shared before but even through all the seriousness, it isn’t bogged down by its grit. Quips, rightly thrown here and there gave this film a rather even tone, and I found myself smiling at a few points.

Also, Bond's relationship with M is now expanding. She still doesn't trust him, and with the sequence of events from the film, she finds it hard to even try, yet Bond seems to have a really invested his loyalty on her which gets through to M slowly, to the point that she began sticking up for him.

While Leiter was given a bigger role, conflicted on whether to 'serve his country' and ignore his conscience or stay true to his beliefs and help Bond this time around, the other's weren't really much memorable. Agent Fields came and went quickly, though her mannerisms and quirky personality did leave a rather good impression, she had too little screen time, or even any development to make us feel for her. Mathis was somewhat dependent on his role in Casino Royale. He does teach a thing or two to Bond along the way, but also quickly faded from the film. Dominic Greene's aide/henchman was just background noise, honestly.

While the characters and plot were solid, my biggest gripe is the somewhat loose direction and editing. Fluff here and there would appear, being more distracting than dramatic. Honestly, during a few chase scenes, the camera pans and switches to another scene, minor ones, and back again to the action. The action itself lost its crisp from Casino Royale, but thankfully, unlike Bourne series, you can still see what is going on, and not have a headache (I got three during the Bourne Ultimatum). Still, I'd like them to keep the action as clear as it was on Casino Royale in the future.

All in all, a solid sequel. Not as good as Casino Royale in many ways, but improved from it with a few. Pacing is pretty even, though more up than down, and isn't bogged down by being 'too long'. I still wish there was a few more down-time to explore and expand the personality of the cast more, but the finished product is still very good at the end.

+ Bond's character expanded, and now, really evolved from his early outings in Casino Royale + More action this time around + Plot's more complicated, yet not overly confusing + Pacing is pretty even + More M and Leiter

  • Editing and Direction seems somewhat loose - Supporting characters somewhat bogged down - Not much explained about Quantum. Hopefully next time?


9/10
9/10
What a fickle bunch you all are!
patrickbrownerst31 October 2008
Quantum of Solace is a great movie that has received far to much undeserved criticism. I am so sick of the tired old comparisons to the Bourne films. Surely Jason Bourne was made in the mould of James Bond? they share the same profession and even the same initials. These comparisons are lazy, people calling Bond a pale effigy of Bourne have really got things the wrong way round, QOS is proof nobody does it better than Bond.

Gone are the days when Bond saved the world by vanquishing megalomaniac communists. QOS paints Bond as an idealist who defies orders to rescue capitalist governments from their own greed. A lot of people have been calling Craigs Bond "a thug" but he is the only Bond who shows any kind of feelings at all, unlike the androgynous smarmy and infallible Bonds of the past. Craigs 007 has clearly been informed by the books where James is complex character.

The film at times does feel quite "un-Bondian" but it still contains all the essential ingredients of a good Bond movie, exotic locations, fast cars, beautiful women, and none stop action. Some of the action sequences are truly stunning and cleverly stylised, such as the gunfight during a performance of "Tosca". Others are blunt and bruising, like a brilliant fight scene where Greene puts an axe through his own foot.

In all the action though the film looses out a little on script, and would have benefited with more dialogue to bring a few lighter touches to the film as well as developing the characters a bit more. This would have probably improved the chemistry between Bond and Camille. Camilles character was a strong one and the partnership promised much but unfortunately failed to deliver.

That said Quantum of Solace was a hugely enjoyable Bond outing that has added a new dimension to the Bond franchise. It cant wait for the next instalment as it will be interesting to see where Bond goes from here.
10/10
Enjoyment!
thealmostinvisiblekid23 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just got back from seeing Quantum of Solace, and as always I have something to say. I'm happy to say that my money was not wasted on the film. Now when I first heard that Daniel Craig was going to be the new Bond, I was skeptical, as were most of the people I surround myself with. But I have to admit, he is living up to legend, that is Bond, at least in my eyes. I'm not sure what it is about the man, but something within him seems to make him fit with the others. The movie itself did not disappoint in the area of action, and adventure. The sequences of fast paced motion held my attention better than I expected. Also, I have never really been a fan of the near porn, going on in movies now a days. But I will say that I am throughly enjoy the new, nearly celibate side of Bond. If you enjoy a good action flick, with realistic fighting, and a hint of romance without the unnecessary things. Then I highly recommend go out and buy yourself a ticket.
9/10
Innovative and refreshing
tdreitzel18 June 2021
I consider this to be is one of the most innovative Bond films. I know it's not what a lot of Bond fans like, particularly because of the action sequences, but I think the up-close, choppy action movement better approximates what a participant would experience. I know that's not the usual director approach, which provides a smoother, suaver experience, but I think this approach in QoS is valid. I enjoyed it.

And I think QoS has two of the best action sequences ever in a Bond film: The opening scene's car chase and, even better, the scaffolding fight, wherein the two combatants deal with everchanging angles and trajectories as they slowly disintegrate the scaffolding they're fighting on. The scaffolding fight is so innovative.

And there are other innovations: I loved the plot beginning one hour after the previous movie. In most Bond films, the mission ends when the movie ends, but in QoS we find that the Casino Royale mission leads to another mission. Not the common movie experience, but I expect it's more like real life.

And I loved the main title and song. It's pulsating, and Jack White has written one of the most creative Bond theme. The sparse music heavy on percussion allows a focus on White's and Alicia Keys' vocal performances and on the outstanding lyrics.

And has there ever been a Bond movie where the female lead turns out to be an emotional twin to Bond? Vesper and Bond had some parallels in Casino Royale, but that relationship didn't work. Camille and Bond have parallel emotional angst, and they end up reaching out to help each other, and not in the usual romantic way. That's innovative, too.

Throughout the movie, everyone thinks Bond wants revenge. But ultimately and refreshingly, he may just want closure.

I'm sorry so many think the plot is incomprehensible. Perhaps when there's a mystery organization the intelligence establishment knows nothing about, things seems difficult to figure out. That's probably realistic, too.

The great strength that Daniel Craig brings to these latest films is his ability to show us a character in emotional turmoil while under professional control. If Quantum of Solace is incomprehensible, then that may be due to Bond figuring out the endgame of what he wants and why.
8/10
Daniel Craig is the Bond yet
MovieMen200515 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum opens with a car chase that rivals the breathtaking construction site foot chase from CR. I personally loved the cinematography, allowing plenty of shots of Craig in the driver's seat making one wonder how much of the driving Daniel Craig did himself. After the chase, Bond opens the trunk to reveal a battered Mr. White(cool), whom he escorting to interrogation with M, once again beautifully played by the incomparable Judi Dench. Within only a few minutes of screen time, White reveals that the organization he's with has people everywhere, including M's personal bodyguard, Mitchell. After a few gunshots, one apparently nicking M, Bond is off running again. Here's the first opportunity to see how physical once again Craig is over his predecessors. His speed, jumping across balconies and rooftops, perfectly mimic the physicality of CR. The intense foot chase goes for a few minutes culminating in an outstanding rope, wench and scaffold-born fist/gunfight in an building interior work site that ends with Mitchell dead. There's a proper touch of realism with M questioning how the hell they couldn't have known about Mitchell with yearly polygraphs and security checks. The way Judi Dench conveys distress and disbelief over how it could have transpired that way leaves you with a feeling of contentment that they didn't just leave it with a question mark. No more details. There are some trademark Bond moves-meeting the Bond lady by pretending to be someone else whose actually supposed to kill her, hooking up with CIA counterpart Felix Leiter for some quick intel, again played dead on the mark by Jeffrey Wright, and of course, a big blowout with the film's heavy. Mathieu Amalric is not a familiar face to me, but his almost nonchalant approach to his methods and intentions is to be appreciated and, I must admit, his fight with Bond was sweet. This guy is not physical or intimidating looking, but he blows his top quite nicely, resulting in one of the most searing and physically visceral Bond villain fights of the last twenty years. That's saying a lot and I might me wrong, but that's what I think and why I think it. There's a lot more that could be said, but I'll leave it for the eyes to see and your mind to go "nice". One last-Daniel Craig is apparently on paper for two more--here's hoping he goes as long as Roger Moore.
7/10
measure of comfort rating at 2.3
Davidon8023 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great actions sequences and very exotic locations but this Bond movie, despite the best efforts of the director and the cast, seems to fall short of reaching the emotional and visceral depth that it sets out to achieve.

The story begins with MI5 infiltrating a secret society of money men, which sounds very promising, but then the mystery is revealed when the society turns out to be this very drab looking Frenchman and his lanky sidekick. It is then divulged that their next target is to buy some land in Bolivia and sell water to the locals, now maybe I missed something but no matter how immoral it may seem, selling water to the indigenous people of Bolivia is hardly a plot to take over the world.

This takes all of 55 minutes to become clear, and what transpires during this time is a subplot involving Judi Dench as M questioning Bond's legitimacy as an agent, or perhaps double agent and a side story involving the new girl Olga seeking retribution for her families death.

At the core of this movie lies the tentative narrative of Bond's love for the departed Vesper from Casino Royale, we are supposedly seeing Bond evolving from ruthless killer with a heart to ruthless killer who is heartless. Though this seems to be a lose strand which takes up too much time and leads to too many close up of Daniel Craig looking forlorn and embittered.

Now I think the debate as to whether Daniel Craig is a good enough Bond is over, he IS Bond and he has made the part his own, as Bond he brings so much credibility to the character that the lack lustre plot is almost forgiven. Now the word plot is used very loosely here, there is a plot but it seems to be so thin that even the actors have forgotten it and instead just gaze lovingly into Daniel Craig's baby blue eyes.

The action sequences seem to be the direction for the plot as every improbable action sequence follows another. Maybe this is because there isn't much of a plot and that if Bond really wanted to save some time he should have just flown straight to the Bunker in Bolivia in the first place and blown it up. This would have saved us the bother of watching this movie and saved the dwindling budget of British central intelligence.

Even though the last remark was made jokingly, essentially had Bond done this from the outset the movie would have still been the same. For over the course of the movie Bond does very little by way of spying or infiltrating but merely appears in places and punches people.

The director Marc Forster tries to take Bond into new artistic directions, as there are some very credible action sequences, most noticeably the opening 15 minutes. However there are some action sequences that just don't hit home, namely the sequence where Bond punches his way out of the opera house to the strains of Puccinni (this is just not Bond's style). Then there is a plane scene which harks back to the days of Piece Brosnan looking forever unshaken and unstirred. And finally the climactic explosions which is taken straight out of the DIY Bond handbook.

From the opening sequence to the very last frame the movie seems to be striving for some sort of artistic resonance but fails with every shift in the scene. All in all a brave attempt by the Bond team to add depth to the character, but it seems their good work was undone by poor script writing and an over emphasis on mood.

Weaker than Casino Royale, better than Golden Eye still not quite The Bourne Supremacy.
2/10
Hectic camera movements destroy tenseness
deepest-blue-122 November 2008
I loved the first James Bond with Daniel Craig and i was gutted about this movie. The action scenes are to hectic and there are so many scene cuts that you just see not connected movie scenes and no arrestingly story. in many scenes i missed zoom outs so that you are able to get an overview over the scene. i love action, but it was to much, just from one kill to another. furthermore the action scenes were crammed with action. what about the humor ? a James bond character has to have humor and make some good jokes whether ironic or between the lines, but there was nothing of these. i think the intention to make a successor of "Casino Royal" has failed.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Much better the second time around
partthreemask29 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With great anticipation my wife and I saw Quantum of Solace in theatres. At the time is certainly did not live up to Casino Royale, its most excellent predecessor.

Having now had the time to give it a second viewing I can say I was wrong with my initial impression. There are so many plot details I missed in the the finely filmed action sequences. My focus was distracted.

Although not the best Bond films it does rank as one of the best.

The acting is very good. Dialogue is not wasted. Every line advances the plot. Think of it as the ugly cousin of Casino Royale that gets more attractive with age.

Action is hard hitting and edited sharply.

Despite leaving many questions unanswered because of edits we are left to want to know more of QUANTUM, Mr. White, Vesper's ex-boyfriend and Bond's future.

Worth a second look.
6/10
Quantum of Solace has a few WAOUWS, but at the most, it is poorly handled.
What's good about Quantum of Solace is that it has brutality, breathlessness, emotional tenderness and some truly terrific scene pieces, which make it an impressive entry in the Bond canon but it was nevertheless a harmed Bond film and here's what I'm on about: the screenplay is weak and too obvious, the story isn't compelling and the Bond character is a little messed up. What I think was a little messed up with Bond is that though I praise Bond being shown as having a dark personality to himself in this film, he no longer represents anything British in personality like in the first Craig-Bond film and that I think is a mistake in the film and something that should have been kept in the film, along with his dark personality. The movie is a little too short for me and I would have wanted it to be a bit longer. What's more, the tone of the film is too light, the movie lacks in joyous pacing and energy and fails to be a significant improvement over its predecessor. Despite a few well earned points, Quantum of Solace is a thrilling misfire and arguably won't win many fans. My rating: 6.2/10
8/10
A good movie
cotandreea28 July 2020
I think it is a good movie despite its flaws. All actors were good.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
James Bond with a Vengeance
iashaik31 October 2008
Just came back from watching Quantum of Solace. And I got to say its one of my fav. bond movies.

If you are expecting just another James Bond movie then you'll be disappointed but if you want a good action movie, Quantum of Solace is for you, I guess this is one of the best movies this year.

To be very honest, I was getting bored of James Bond blowing up a building, brushing his suit and walking away, and I love this bond, make the movie more realistic and believable and hats off to Daniel Craig for the acting, no other bond might have done justice to this movie except Craig.

The seriousness of the movie have had some bad reviews but I guess the story, action and acting does justice to the plot, wonderful direction and editing makes this movie a must watch for any movie lover.

Serious contender for Oscar, and this would be the first for any bond movie, enough said.
9/10
A Bond for the 21st Century
Zen41611 December 2008
Daniel Craig kicks butt as Bond, simple as that. Though I enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's foray into the film genre, he (Brosnan) simply isn't as believable as a top-notch, living-on-the-edge-of-danger spy like Craig's version is. That all being said, this film was extremely good. I liked the fact that it was tied (at the beginning) to the previous movie, "Casino Royale" and that "C.R.'s" villain was part of a much larger and more dangerous operation. It was also refreshing to have a Bond Girl (Olga Kurylenko as Camille) who wasn't a bed buddy to our hero but rather, an equally driven partner. It should also be noted that Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene is one of the nastiest and creepiest looking villains yet and he's very easy to despise for his cold-blooded sicko ways (a credit to a great acting job by Amalric). The amazing locations are almost like a co-star in this film and the action never disappoints. My only qualm is with the ridiculously shaky filming sequence at the beginning of the flick that was entirely unnecessary....more and more film-makers are using this "vomit-motion" filming technique, thinking it's avant-garde or exciting or some such crap but it's just annoying. Otherwise? A great Bond film. See it.
6/10
Tisk tisk, terrible Cinematography. Still a good movie!
knightsfingv18 November 2008
'Quantum of Solace' comes short of my expectation, only in the action sequence cinematography. The SHAKING of the camera seems like they asked a child touching a camera for the first time to film in these awesome settings, with awesome action scenes ready to go. The fact that the audience is forced to play "Where's Waldo" during an already intense scene is beyond me. This probably makes the editor look bad because the sequences become very choppy and unprofessional, when it is obviously not his fault (unless it was his idea to do this).

On the flip side to this rant, the script was very well written. The use of location was close to perfection. The acting from the female lead Olga Kurylenko was also a plus. It's kind of funny how they inserted a giant eye background to a play that looked like it was lifted from a Judas Priest concert.

Anyways...don't take my word for it, go see it regardless...it's just my opinion.
10/10
Best Bond Film in Years
MikeB-928 June 2010
Daniel Craig nails Ian Flemming's Bond. He is gritty, not overly handsome (unlike Brosnan and Dalton), and seems human. The story is excellent, the action is exciting, and the acting is spot-on. Ms. Dench has become a formidable but humanistic M. She is really adapting well to the roll and stories like QoS allow her to showcase her talents. Mr. Craig has redefined the character of Bond and the writers have stopped using silly gadgetry to cover bad story lines. This is a Bond film that would have made Sean Connery proud to be a part of. I look forward to many more Craig-Bond films and now I'll have to go and watch Casino Royale (2006). QoS is the first Bond I've seen in its entirety since Lazenby. I could never stomach the Roger Moore Bonds - total drivel.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just enjoy it for what it is...
DinoBond6 November 2008
OK so it's not as good as Casino Royale but lets face it, that was putting the bench mark fairly high to begin with. The story does jump about a bit and does seem to go from one action set piece to the next but it's all done exceptionally well.

Craig and Dench are stand outs in this and do their jobs admirably. Craig IS Bond and has been the best thing for the franchise in years. My only criticism of him in QOS though is that he is almost too tough and indestructible. Yes he is hell bent on vengeance and personifies anger through his cold blue eyes but even so you don't feel that he is physically vulnerable in any way and subsequently the scenes of peril he finds himself in feel a bit hollow.

Personally I quite liked Mathieu Almaric as the adversary - he is a great actor.

Summing up I think QOS is a fine way to spend 66 minutes and I suspect that with it leading on from CR so soon it does it's best to tie up any loose ends and helps us identify and empathise with Bond as he emerges into the new franchise.

I feel that we may be seeing a more plot and character driven Bond in the next outing. Lets hope so.
7/10
Worth a watch for true bond fans, but otherwise......
rar1557 November 2008
Before writing anything i would like to tell u that i m not a big bond fan and this is the first bond movie that i have seen in the theatres.

I would like to say that after watching Casino Royale i m a touch disappointed with this movie.

The script of the movie is not up to the mark, and it is boring at times, however, the stunts in the movie are quite amazing and Daniel Craig has done a fantastic job.

So the movie is definitely worth a watch, but don't expect much if u r not interested in watching d stunts or if u r not a true fan of Daniel Craig.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not Casino Royale
lance-18317 October 2008
First again! Just saw QoS, and everything that Casino Royale was, this isn't.

With no Fleming story to follow, this film flounders. Can non-stop action get annoying? It certainly annoyed this reviewer.

I enjoyed maybe two scenes, and these were with Craig and Giancarlo Giannini. Softly played and touching. However, I must say that Mathieu Amalric was a formidable presence as Dominic Greene.

The titles were no where as good as CR.

I felt nothing during this film....except maybe let down...as let down as I felt when I saw Licence to Kill after the splendid The Living Daylights.

Without Fleming as a guide, the James Bond films are lost.

More when I feel like it.

Lancelot Narayan
3/10
You Got To Be Kidding Me!!!
furiso18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One word could summarise this film, and that's awful!!! When I first heard of this film, I thought that it would very good as I'm a bond fan, but it has got to be the worst bond film ever, I mean Daniel Craig is a great bond actor, the acting was good. But the story completely sucked. I mean the entire film was suppose to be about Bond handling with the loss of Vesper, I don't see anything in that line anything about Greene Planet, the entire film could've done without them, even if they did want to put it in, they should've at least explained the background of them better. It all seemed rushed as well. It's like when you're making a building, a lot of thought and work has to go in it, this looked like it was stuck together with Pritstick glue. I just hope the next bond film is going to be much better.
8/10
an excellent addition to the bond family
gladfan3-131 October 2008
now this is going to mismatch with other reviews here, we cant all be the same I'm sorry to say. because i loved this movie, yes the action sequences were far fetched and shot quite weird ways but hey ... its a bond film.

the acting and storyline were believable in the realms of a sequel bond movie.on the whole see this mo0vie, the stunts are great the gadgets sparse but it has Judy Dench a British institution and remember ITS A BOND FILM not a documentary on mi6 or the British royal family. on the whole great.....

lets hope the next movie keeps craigin the role if the progression of the character continues and Q is reintroduced the next one will be a real blockbuster.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What's all the fuzz about. Lots of Action but no Bond
Murat-1021 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow what a piece of crap. I seems these days such bad movies with enormous marketing budgets are well marketed. As the first Bond with the totally unfitting Daniel Craig who is a fine actor but no Bond at all, this one has also nothing to do anymore with the classic Bond's. Although director MArc Foster seems so be a Bond Fan and paid his tribute in different scenes (Girl covered in oil instead of Gold and some others). So you can say that there was also some effort to get closer to the old ones.

Why I don't like the movie? It so much silly action which is sometimes stunning but often just senseless and so repetitive. It reminds me of the quote of Jon Peters which Kevin Smith told on a university speech about "Superman" (look it up on youtube). "Well there has to be an action beat every ten minutes" At least it looks like it. First of all the repetitive "Parcour Sequence" which we already saw in Casino Royale. Why again here? Then the car chase sequence in the beginning. There seems to be no logic at some points how he gets out of some situations, but hey as long as we have a lot of fast cutting with "nothing-to-really-see"-Close-Ups and add a lot of sound-design, the audience will buy it. Same with the plane-chase-sequence. Did someone really understand why the smaller flexible and more agile plane did fly against some mountain? Me I didn't. It seemed not logical. And the reason why the small plane would lose is not really clear. I'm sorry of course because of James Bond. Sorry I don't buy that.

Then the totally unrealistically "minority report"-Copy scene in the "headquarters". Get out of here. So sophisticated technique and still not knowing whats going on in the world. Who are you fooling'. Then the totally cheap mobile-phone-photograph scene. Bond just takes a wide shot of the crowd and the mobile phone knows on what to zoom without him touching the phone again.

Then the bodyguard of M. Workin for her for 5 years for an organization that he is ready to die for immediately as if he is on a mission of faith. In the ends it turns out the organization is all about money.

Then the totally silly explosion of the house of the Bolivian general in the end.

I just can imagine the director saying: "I don't know why but we need the house to explode consecutively, it just makes no sense. But it looks really good."

All this cross cutting in the fights. Trying to get as much symbolism in this superficial action movie as possible.

Then Bond. Craig you are just no Bond. Bond was inspired by an playboy who got all the spying information because of his ability to get women laid and talk. That's what the character was based on. And the his love/revenge emotion. Oh he is so much in love with the girl he lost in the movie before. Thats why he is on the revenge trip. This holy love of this man who never cared for women in his old movies. He cares so much for her. That he leaves no possibility out to lay girls or kiss other girls while being on his revenge trip. And then we shall buy his love/revenge emotion. Get out of here.

Why is the character of MAthis suddenly in the trunk of his jeep. And why did Bond leave the party without him or Mrs. Fields, when he knew how dangerous Dominique is, in the first place?

Questions over Questions. I wanted to get out of the movie actually after 15 minutes. Just stayed to be totally sure that it was crap and promised to not go in another Craig Bond movie to come.

So the box-office may fool the makers and you earn money with him but time will tell how one will look on these Craig bonds in twenty years. As I can still watch the old Sean-Connery-Bonds and they have magic because of the bond mood. The new ones don't have that.

Ah, I could go on forever.

But that's enough for today.
8/10
Be prepared to do some reading
Elmware14 November 2008
Be prepared to read lots of translation subtitles if you don't understand the language being spoken (I believe it's Spanish.) The subtitle goes rather quickly too.

If you love to see action-packed car, boat and plane chases, guns blazing shoot-em-up fighting scenes with stunt work, or even a big blast, you won't be disappointed. This movie has all that for all you thrill seekers out there to enjoy.

The movie might be a bit hard to follow. Especially if you are unable to catch all the translation subtitles on the screen.

All in all, it wasn't a bad movie IMO. Can't wait until the next one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Where is the identity?
mortimores7 November 2008
I cannot believe that such an iconic and treasured piece of branding has been left out of Quantum of Solace. It is the only branding capable of raising an audience's passion in just 7 beats, one which is able to grab immediate attention and raise a smile - even in the dark, and I found myself waiting for it through the whole of QoS. There is a moment in Bond Movies when the audience usually cheers - inwardly, or openly, when they know the single handed calvary is coming, and that moment is when the audience hears those famous 7 beats. Whether it's 10 minutes into the film, half an hour, or an hour from the start, it works - it just works, and takes a James Bond film to a level where even Jason Bourne can't make it to. Whoever took it, give it back.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
not as good as Casino Royale, but still an excellent film
Whitetower42 November 2008
After coming out of the cinema after seeing Quantum of Solace, i thoroughly enjoyed it. Admittedly both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are not strictly "bond films" but i believe they have moved on for the better.

The action sequences in Quantum of Solace are fantastic, as is Daniel Craig. In this film bond is even colder and more ruthless, however it works really well for this storyline. It also includes a stronger plot them most bond films, however it is sometimes diluted by all of the action scenes, but thats being picky. A mention must go to Mathieu Amalric as the villain Dominic Greene, who plays his smarmy yet sophisticated role off to perfection. The start of his Hollywood career i think.

But on the downside, it did lack something that Casino Royale had, yet i cant quite put my finger on it. Was it because there was no le Chiffre (who Mads Mikkelson played brilliantly)or was bond to cold? or was it just because Casino Royale was just the start of something different, i cannot quite tell.

All in all not as good as Casino Royale, but still one of the better bond films. Worth seeing.
6/10
Some Disappointment.
tomasg-6981419 March 2016
This "Casino Royale Pt. II" could have been so great. So great. The promising opening scene was a real roaring and loaded one, when you watched it on the big screen at the premiere. This gonna turn out good, I remember saying to myself after some 10-15 minutes into the show.

Then the interest faded fast, and the story got striking dull to me. It turned out to a common action-movie with less Bond-feeling than it's precursor. The chase after a major crime syndicate that started in CR, suddenly wasn't that interesting anymore. A clip-show of action packed scenes that was suppose to keep you engaged, doesn't do it. Much violence. Very much violence. The producers defended it with Bond's strong will to avenge Vesper Lynd's death, but I think that failed. The producers seemed to have packed in some 80 m $ more than CR, for nothing. (Total cost of some 230 m $, I've read.) The movie is overall quite good, but has too many lacks. The cast is good, the environments is nice, but the real, solid 007-feeling isn't just there.

The women who passes by are just for looks; best of them is beautiful Gemma Arterton, who plays her part for some laughs, as I see it. Easy going, with humor. The main Bond Girl of the movie (played by Olga Kurylenko) is quite flat, as the usual "Pleasure Girl Who Has Been Kept Imprisoned By Villain". She is on her own vendetta journey and crosses Bond's way on the road.

Jesper Christensen's Mr. White was to be developed further on. A well played personality by a professional actor. Jeffery Wright's Felix Leiter of the CIA delivers a good touch to the movie, too.

The somehow main story (of water supplies for an exposed Latin country) is the most important sub-message of this film. Policy makers who wants control over the helpless masses. The end is a lecture of what's rightfully comes to you when you're too evil minded...

This is not one of the greatest James Bond movies. Shortest running time of them all (106 minutes) which suits this movie good. It's not standing out as a true classic like Goldfinger, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye, or it's mate movie Casino Royale.

But it's a part of the 007 movie log all right, and deserve to be watched even in the future.

Next up was a major improvement, some four years away. Too far away, back then.
10/10
a great Bond movie
chrisward-418 November 2008
This is a great Bond movie. Realistic, gritty, edgy and fast paced. Craig again shows why he owns the role, and the support from the cast is excellent, as is the choice of sets and locations. Sure, the action scenes are fast, but so is life. The opening sequence doesn't grab the viewer and the song is a dud. Judi Dench is fabulous as always and there is great humour between her and Bond throughout the movie. The plot is generally believable - anyone who has worked in the 3rd world will tell you that power revolves around finances with dodgy corporates. I was not so sure about the closing sequences in the hotel. The aviation shots were very realistic and the SF260 was menacing. Long live the new Bond.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Messy disappointment
dimitrijemilosevic3 January 2022
I remember watching this before Casino Royale when i was a kid, and i actually liked it more than Casino Royale at the time. Why? I still don't understand.

Marc Forster as a director for James Bond movie was definitely the wrong choice. The man himself said that he doesn't understand why and how he got the offer for this job. He had couple of good drama-genre movies behind him at that point in time, but those are not references to direct a James Bond movie.

There is a central theme in this movie that needed to be explored after the events of Casino Royale, and i can only guess that's why he was hired. He needed to explore the more human aspect of James Bond, but the whole essence of James Bond movie goes out in the wind if that was the only reason they hired him, and that is exactly what happened here.

There are 2 big things that are bad in this movie: 1. Writing, and 2. Editing.

There was a screenwriters strike in the middle of the production, and the script was far from final product, so instead of waiting for couple of months for strike to be over, Daniel Craig - actor, and Marc Forster-director, decided to finish the script themselves, and it shows.

I've never seen the plot of some movie to be so simple, yet so convoluted at the same time. They saw the success of realistic, more grounded James Bond movie in Casino Royale, so they pushed themselves even further from over the top crazy villains and world domination plans from earlier iterations of James Bond. They decided to double down on that realism, and we got the most boring, uninteresting bad guy(i don't even want to say villain) of all time probably - Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric, and simplest, rawest objective in any James Bond movie ever. Although i don't rate Mathieu Amalric that high as an actor, i don't think he did anything wrong here acting wise. His character is just dullest basic dude in the history of James Bond movies.

Also, speaking of bad writing, some choices the characters make and things that they say, the coincidences, the way characters know exactly where to find another person and how, when and where they get from place A to place B can be nitpicked and question marked into the ground.

Editing in action scenes is atrocious. So many quick cuts that you can't see anything on the screen, you have no clue what is going on, and some scenes that should've been so satisfying and electric, especially the intro car chase scene, is so bad, that your head hurts as you are trying to see what is going on, and you feel like you gonna throw up at the same time.

For the movie that is not only a direct sequel for brilliant Casino Royale, but the direct follow-up after the final scene at the end of Casino Royale, after the first 10-15 minutes which are badly edited but still exciting, the movie goes in the totally different direction plot-wise, while leaving James Bond to deal with his problems internally until the rest of the movie, which was just so unsatisfying in the great scheme of things.

Worth saying is also that this movie probably has one of the worst James Bond intro-songs of all time.

As for the good things, Daniel Craig as James Bond is great again and Olga Kurylenko as Camille is good as well. Actually, how uninspiringly written her character is, and how little screen time the script gives her, she is pretty memorable and does a good job.

There were some cool ideas and metaphors that Marc Forster tried to implement in here, especially intercutting in some scenes, but it just didn't work that well for me because of bad writing and bad editing.

At the end of the day, this was first James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig that i saw, and i remember the good times when i watched this over and over again when i was younger, so i guess i have a soft spot for it, therefore not giving it lower grade that it objectively deserves.
4/10
just another plain and boring action movie
AzaraT8 November 2008
After Casino Royal, which was a quite nice movie in my opinion, I didn't expect much of this movie. However, I still managed to get disappointed. I wanted to see a bond movie, but what I got was a plain boring action movie.

The movie starts with a car chase and already at that point I had a bad feeling. The editing was "agressive" and you saw the thing from many random angels changing all the time.

Mr. Bond's charm is all gone, the character is so lifeless unlike many other bond movies. He doesn't have any cool gadgets like a watch that can control a car or anything, so that aspect of the movie is gone too. It almost seems like the director wanted the film to be too realistic. Also the plot is something that concerns us now a day, which might not be the best idea ever.

And now to the villain. Man he is boring! He is not special in any way, there is nothing to remember about him. He doesn't have a golden gun or sharp iron teeth. I don't even remember a single quote from him.

The always present sex scene is gone. You do see that he is about to do it with Mrs. Fields (which is completely useless for the plot), but the scene is not there. They even cut mr. Bonds most famous quote out "my name is Bond, James Bond" whats up with that!?

So if you want to see a James Bond movie. Don't see this one, because this is just a plain and boring action movie seen 100 times before.
6/10
Bond is gone!
pedrovelazquez12 November 2008
Yes, this is certainly a different Bond(?) No elegance, no gadgets, no martinis, and not even the traditional phrases. Just this guy who does his thing right, but doesn't even look like James Bond. A very confusing editing doesn't allow you to keep up. I've noticed I'm not the only one with this problem. Who is chasing, and who is running away?Hard to tell.

This Bond doesn't even try to save the world. What was it about? Water? The stunts are extreme... futile. The airplane-scene quite ridiculous. Well, after Casino Royal I was expecting more than that. It wasn't James Bond, but it wasn't bad. James Bond is dead, there is just this guy in an average action-movie who has the same name. Pity!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Execrable drivel... with no piranhas
paulbayliss20005 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just watched this film again prior to seeing Skyfall. I had seen it before, but couldn't remember much about it. I now know why. It truly is vacuous drivel. The plot makes very little sense at all, and the disjointed direction makes it even harder to follow. Worse, the villain is completely pathetic. James Bond villains used to have piranhas, sharks and crocodiles, and giant bases that emerged from beneath the sea or from inside volcanoes, from where they hatched grandiose plans for world domination. Here, instead, we have a man who wants to take over a water company. Is this really a case for the world's greatest secret agent? Please, if you are going to make a film that crashes through all boundaries of credibility, at least give us some piranhas.
By far my favourite Bond
sepial31 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is more in response to some of the negative critiques I've read here since I cannot quite follow their arguments, where in fact arguments they were. Naturally we all perceive what we perceive and form opinions from that, at times, however one can be left a little astonished, me in this case wondering whether some folks have watched the movie in slow motion, at least where it concerns the action scenes. My own eyes watched utterly well crafted, brilliantly paced action, and I mean each one of the sequences, but, hell, a step-up from the mind- blowing parcour-scene in the previous Bond might still be a little lame for some. The most incomprehensible re-curring lament in those reviews regarded a 'poor story-line'. What can one say? Take the majority of earlier Bond- movies, including the worshipped Connery-era and most of the Moore- vehicles, pick one and sum up the story, then do the same with the story of 'Quantum of Solace.' That should do the trick. Perhaps the story was a little too complex for some? It is a little more complex than 'Moonraker', yet still easy enough to follow and, I dare say, much more engaging, as a story. This already having been so with 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' is an organic extension of the former that establishes its own life and power quickly with the first scenes already. Each more defined action-sequence has its part in this story, which remains grimmer than any Bond previous to the 2 redefinitions, and on the whole we have drama gripping over into the action. Filmmaking- wise there is no match in any of the predecessors. When things threaten to become repetitious as Bond has to battle his way out at the opera through an out-numbering force once again, Forster turns off the sound and leaves Puccini's 'Te Deum' from 'Tosca', as the only soundtrack, with just the right effect and from the right second on, turning the scene and whole sequence into one of my favourite. Craig's Bond himself has been criticised by some as a far departure from the 'traditional' Bond, being 'reduced to a thug.' Many people have luckily noticed that his Bond is more 'traditional' than any of those before him if measured by Fleming's work, but much more important is that this Bond is intentionally still a Bond 'in the making', thus a far more interesting character, as he's more liable to mistake and failure than those in the past. 'Thug' still doesn't describe him, as he's clearly more vulnerable. But yes, a departure it is, whether the purists like it or not. Yes, for now it is over with the funny gadgetry, for the sake of a more believable secret servant. Yes, it is over with the superiority, in favour of the possibility that Bond may indeed fail. Yes, it is over with Bond's approaching dangerous situations with a mocking smile, as neither he nor we can be certain anymore that the next stunt will close with an amusing one-liner. If you miss all this, there are 20 old Bond-movies to watch again, I prefer a good movie to one that focuses on upholding expectations and traditions; all those feats can't be build out much more and aren't really compatible with this new, real Bond, both the character and his world. The humour surfaces seldom in the constantly dangerous universe, but when it does it has a wit by its own instead merely a Bond who must seem witty. As for Bond it goes here for the villain, who seemed to some obviously not villainous enough. It's another tradition, of course. The Bond- villain and the Bond-henchmen. Not only are they completely and utterly evil by necessity (although there had been exceptions), but they must distinguish themselves visually as well, by a physical difference preferably, and be it just an eye-patch. Mathieu Amalric's villain is utterly evil and distinguishes himself by nothing from any other villain we might meet in this world without recognizing them as such, particularly those with money and plans of grandeur. And his acting, again intentionally, does nothing further to distinguish his character from the villains we do recognize, at least not up to the point where, bereft of his henchmen and the fruits of his plan, this petite man's sheer fury alone overpowers the much better trained Bond for a moment. So at least for this instance (the movie) it's also a good bye to the standard villain who so far could only be replaced with another variation of the standard that only on the surface looked so different from the previous. This time in favour of a villain as we can expect them, if yet not recognize them on the street: one of a number within a greater organization behind, deceiving in being unspectacular, driving an agenda like a resolution, all very much like, yes, like politicians. And still, for the audience with only a quantum more sensuality, forgive the pun, Amalric manages to pack more silent menace into a single glance on a plane when a CIA-gimp laughs a trifle too silly than any Auric Goldfinger will manage with an array of nervous gestures. In the end a movie works or not as a whole, and now and then the experience will differ. I do dare to think, however, that some of the critics for whom the basis of their bad experience is what they miss of the old Bond might gain from a second viewing. For me almost everything attacked was precisely what made this Bond the most accomplished so far, particularly when viewed in tie with 'Casino Royale.' It is extremely well shot and bears the visible mark of a director's work, not only that of a producers' executive director. It is a new Bond indeed, and it's a Bond as a part of the major film- productions' awakenings, which is also signified by having truly gifted directors signing on. Beside Bond also Mendes returns.
6/10
Something Cool, But Nothing Like Casino Royale
irken5816 November 2008
Let's get this out in the open, Casino Royale was a mind-blowing addition to the Bond franchise and could possibly be in the top 5 best Bond films. However, with the follow up Quantum of Solace, it comes no where near as close as Casino Royale.

The plot, which in my opinion is very confusing, did not follow any true Bond movie. It was mainly just action, a gunshot here and there, death, and 2 minutes of talking. Craig didn't seem like he was the same Bond like the last film, where he was a sophisticated agent on the edge. In Quantum, he was just on the edge.

The action scenes were amazingly well done, something new that has never been brought to the table, but it somewhat lacked the originality that Royale had. Judi Dench is good in the film, so is Craig, but as said before, it feels like he isn't all there.

The verdict is that it's a good film, fun to watch, great action. But it's lack in plot and character development is what ultimately brings this Bond movie down.

PS- The opening song choice was incredibly terrible! It did not match the feel of the movie and made my ears bleed a little bit...
7/10
Well done but not outstanding
mopedchen7 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now that I finally happened to see it, I have my difficulties to state a clear opinion. Okay, let's start, I did not expect QOS to better and outdo CR, for me it was clear from the outset, that this would be an almost impossible task, as CR IMHO is an outstanding Bond movie (in my personal list it tossed off GF after 20 years to take top spot, but that's just my personal opinion). First of all, the movie does not feel too short, it feels more like a two-hours-movie. But the problem is, that too much happens action wise within the short time, I sometimes felt I would like a short slowed down scene as some sort of a breather, just to relax a bit. This movie keeps one on the edge of one's seat for the full running time, which on the one hand is a good thing, but as I said, sometimes you just would like to shout "Could you please slow down for a few minutes?." Then the other problem is, there is a lot of action going on, but the story does not catch up with that. Actually the story as such is not bad, we had worse in Bond movies, but, well, a bit more of character development and personal relations (a strength of CR) would have been nice. There is less there than meets the eye, once the movie is over, you think "hey, the story was not actually THAT great." As somebody observed, with CR they had a rich material from where to develop their plot, this feels more like a Michael G. Wilson script for the mid-80's Bond. Next time maybe a bit less of breathtaking action (which was shot and directed in great style, no doubt) and a bit more of a story (without the clumsy romantic bits of CR), whoever writes the screenplay for that.

Director: Marc Forster does a nice job, taken that he usually does not do action movies. Roberto Schaefer delivers beautiful and stylish pictures, the direction is well-handled, with the sole exception that it is a little too fast-paced.

Screenplay: Well, maybe it shows, that Haggis was under heavy time pressure to finalize his draft before the WGA strike kicked off, and maybe the constant rewrites did not help the matter much (I have the same problem with TND, which too me simply is incoherent and falls apart in too many bits and pieces). After his much lauded efforts on CR, Haggis has to take part of the blame for that, too.

Actors: Daniel Craig delivers in the expected great manner, taken that he is not given as much "meat" as with CR, but he continues his interpretation of Bond and makes the character his own. And I like the deadpan way h delivers his one-liners, quick and dry. Mathieu Amalric was fine and creepy, but as with Jonathan Pryce and Robert Carlyle (both very fine actors), he was not given enough room to develop his character, Mads Mikkelsen got a much better written part in CR. Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright are excellent when they are on screen, but they have both not enough screen time to show their excellence, but they make the most out of it. Olga Kurylenko was alright, a good job, but not outstanding. Gemma Arterton had very little screen time, and her character remained completely shallow throughout, she really was there to have at least one short sex scene and then suffer a spectacular death (great bow towards GF, that was). Judi Dench is as always reliable, but her M becomes too dominant for my taste. The rest of the cast did well. Little question to the native English speakers: Did Anatole Taubman also deliver his lines with a Swiss German accent in English? In German it's not only an accent, the few sentences he does not utter in French, are in broad Swiss German dialect. Or was that just a silly idea of the dubbing director?

A highlight was the Tosca scene, IMHO the best scene of the movie. The parallel shootout with the opera scene and with almost inaudible gunshots and the Tosca music instead reminded me a little of THE GODAFTHER Part 1. Another great scene was Mathis' death, this was played brilliantly by both Craig and Giannini, moving, touching, sad, and one of the few quiet moments. The final scene with Vesper's boyfriend on the other hand is again too rushed, it's like "Oh, we have to resolve that bit as well." Greene being left in the desert with just a can of oil was a nice idea, very cynical and very efficient...

Music: On CD the score sounds better than in the film, and as omnipresent as the Bond theme is on CD, you don't get that much of it in the film. But as I said, Arnold's score IMHO is his third best Bond score (out of 5)...

All in all I will watch the movie again once or twice and maybe it will grow a bit more to me by repeated watching, but after the first viewing I would say: It was alright, it was very entertaining and worth to watch, but not a Bond classic. After the outstanding CR it was expectable that they would not outdo this, it's good, but it could have been better. And we should be glad they pushed back the release date for six months, otherwise we would have got an even more rushed up movie. Maybe 3 years to develop and shoot and edit the movie is better, but then I hate waiting for 3 years, 2 years is almost too long. But if we get a better movie with Bond 23, maybe 12 months more would help the movie. A mixed bag, and I would give it 7 out of 10.
10/10
This was a great sequel to Casino Royale
guyhayder28 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
007 at his strongest, smartest, coolest, fearless style. The music was great. The editing was great. A movie about betrayal and 007 being at his best. Not being a playboy. Not being Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan.

A bit graphic and I would have edited some scenes out. He isn't a playboy, I repeat.

I didn't like some scenes and they should have been cut out and was from the TV version. I would have deleted them out.

I wish David Arnold returned for Skyfall and Spectre and No Time To Die. I wish those movies were very like Casino Royale and Quantum and at the same time being new and different. I know 007 will find his soul mate/true/love/wife.
8/10
Review upon a second viewing
UberNoodle29 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have just watched Quantum of Solace again, and I don't really understand why it's such a maligned Bond film. In all honesty, I find it very hard to re-watch the old bonds now, even the revered Goldeneye. QOS is criticised for not having much of the wholly debonaire Bond so iconic of past films, yet the much lauded Casino Royale lacked that interpretation of Bond as well.

Essentially, the Bond films of the past got caught up in the sexual revolution of the 60s and thus reflect that attitude, however that's hardly relevant nowadays when scenes in television dramas are enough to make those old films blush. The sexuality of the old bonds is rather quaint when viewed with today's far more sexually subjective lens. If such an approach were to be kept, perhaps only granting the agent his first bisexual experience could keep it in any way punchy.

This rebooting of Bond has been long overdue, and the aspects which I've enjoyed most about it is the closeness with the colder, more ruthless Bond of the earlier novels, while still maintaining some level of sexuality and the debonaire. The character's emotional development -- at first cocky and naive in Casino, and then injured and broken (after Vesper's betrayal and death) in Quantum -- is far more rewarding emotionally than yet another formulaic rerun of the tired Bond archetype.

Yet the criticism is that this somehow diminishes his character, makes him like 'James Bourne'. It really is quite silly. What diminishes any character is having him constantly repeat himself such that he becomes his own caricature. Craig's Bond has me excited as to what he'll do next. Bond has become a far more complex and intriguing person to get to know. I don't miss the gadgets, nor the suave dismissal of danger which only somebody mentally deficient could perform.

Other than that, the charges levied against the film, such as a clichéd and scant story, as well as an over-dependence on action scenes, are amusingly hypocritical. The same critics decry the loss of the older, outdated Bond yet hold this film to standards very few of those old Bond films could ever hope to meet. Bond is anything if not clichéd, but isn't that part of the charm, and it's one of the old traditions which have survived.

The other reason for the film's failure to gel with critics, at least in my view, is the premise. The villain is nebulous and vague. We know that whoever Bond chases, he or she will no doubt be nothing more than a pawn, or at least one of many heads of a global hydra. This lacks the personal punch of a Le Chiffre, yet for the attentive viewer, the new villains and their organisation have intriguing intersections.

The other issue was the plot, and by this I mean that of the villain, who is concerned with not only installing, propping up and profiting off dictatorships of developing countries, but also stealing the water rights from them as well. We in the developed world can't imagine what paying for every drop of water is like, not like in those developing countries in which people are jailed for collecting rainwater.

In the the Middle East, fossil water supplies have all but depleted, and they don't replenish. The brief years of prosperous farming are now over. New economies collapse and corporate rescuers step in, like Monsanto with their genetically modified, 'terminator seeds' which require chemical activation or they're infertile past their 'licensed season'. Thus developing nations become forever shackled transnationals' profit. Imagine if the water supply was controlled by them as well.

So yes, the culprits aren't dictators or dastardly SMERSH agents. They are transnational corporations, completely amoral in their decisions, who see owning a whole nation's water as a great investment. I think that movie goers just failed to key into the grand scale of villainy which Bond was up against. That and, Quantum of Solace is quite an impenetrable title for many Joe Blo movie goers -- a common complaint -- yet the title is simple, that Bond is searching for that one 'quantum of solace' which will enable him to overcome his grief and anger and function as a human being and a man.

I think that, facing all we have to face in this new, corporate and amoral world, a quantum of solace is what everybody needs.
7/10
James Bond as you must imagine him to be.
leeharveydeniegamaigue8 November 2021
My actual favorites in the whole Dan Craig Bond Movies but I don't rewatch them as often like some of his other Bond flicks.

The whole movie is fast paced, action after small talking and another action, the movie even begins with a eye drooling action scenes.

Aside from the action scenes, the overall premise is great, I actually liked the main villain in it, It's more realistic compared to the ridiculous Blofeld, Gustav Graves, etc.

It's full of subplots that connect to the previous Bond film, Casino Royale.

If you watch the two of those at the same time, It's gonna be a non stop roller coaster ride, you can also watch this as a standalone film and you will still understand the overall main plot of the film. I know it's not great like some of Daniel Craig's Bond entries but it's my personal favorite, you will like it as a standalone movie.
9/10
You (might) have to see it twice ....
kanenasanonas6 December 2008
I actually had to come back and change my vote from 7 to 9 after seeing it again in the theater for the second time with my son.

I must admit I REALLY liked it this time! You definitely have to see it twice to get the meaning of everything and I'm n NOT talking about the plot (which is easy to follow). I'm talking about both the action sequences and characters. Having already seen the "booms" and the "bangs", I could clearly see now why they picked THIS guy as the villain, what was Giannini's role in Bonds character evolvement and so on.

This film, though rated less than Casino Royale, is bigger and deeper than CR.

Which comes to this being the ONLY mistake the writers and the director did: they made a film which you have to see twice to see how perfect it is.

9/10 (now)
7/10
Quantum of Vengeance
hpagan1412 December 2008
This time Bond comes out of the hand of the experimented Marc Foster, and it comes for the first time as a direct sequel of Casino Royal, for the franchise this is the first time this has happened, in Quantum we get to see 007 fighting not only his enemies but also his inner demons as he goes vengeance driven after the one responsible for his love death. This time Bond do not reach the emotional levels that we got in Casino Royal, but it is OK.

For the best part of the film we got the nice direction job, a superb editing work, and a lot of action sequences that will take your breath away. Daniel Craig is like always very good, not the same for Amalric the villain that is not at his best.

For the good of the franchise this Bond will not let down it will be one more step forward for the Brithis Agent.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
underrated bond film
Goodfellasz18 April 2014
This very entertaining sequel to the popular Casino Royale has received a lot of critique and it must be said that this critique is not deserved.

QOS can be seen as a direct sequel to casino royale. And this is probable one of the reasons that this movie has been received rather negatively. Casino royale was a near perfect film while QOS is one of the better bond films (but not films in general). After CR the expectations have been to high for this rather small sequel. Nevertheless QOS is an entertaining movie with a mediocre to good villain.

The editing of the movie has a rather quick pace, this together with some of the action scenes make the movie a rather Jason Bourne - James bond cross-over. If you can look past this fact you'll find the story to be quite good. More important the action scenes feel more bond than some of the scenes in CR. This together with some subtle references to previous bond movies (Dr. No, goldfinger and The spy who loved me) mixed with the incredible soundtrack of David arnold make this a worthy successor to CR and a great Bond movie.
6/10
Missing something
Kelchubordnor11 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What to say about this movie, well as I sat down with my fellow cinema goers... okay dodgy title lets see where it goes. Goodish car chase then the...........music..........kicks in, I HATE THIS SONG don't get it don't like it and was the most painful part of an otherwise average Bond movie, I did mention I hated this song didn't I?? Sorry calmed down now. First off he has no gadgets, this is deliberate and was mentioned in Casino Royale and on all the documentaries, this is Bond's first days he has no gadgets, he uses his brain and his training from the armed forces not the C4 hidden in his OMEGA watch or the invisibility spray hidden in his suit (sorry couldn't resist). Also he uses a lot of hand to hand combat which is close quarters and very nice to watch. Next to the Bourne movies some of the best I've seen in this genre of movie. Story for Bond is terrible and blotchy at best, also the director blatantly tried too hard to make this movie better than it could have been, but to be honest what I love about this movie are the following. Bond is tired he looks like he hasn't slept in a while Craig pulls this look off superbly. He is so on a revenge mission and it shows He continues with his mission even when officially suspended If in doubt have a look yourself and don't take my word for it you'll probably love it. Either way enjoy
8/10
ode to past bondness
reolew1 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I recently saw this latest addition to the evergrowing Bond-cycle in a theatre and it took me a couple of days to form something of an opinion. Because, boy, this is an action-packed movie, I mean absolutely action-PACKED. The film doesn't even kick off with the traditional gun barrel-shot (we get that at the end of the movie). We just fall into the story where it cut off at the end of Casino Royale. And this happens to be a car chase. A chase that doesn't seem to stop throughout the movie. There is some dialogue. It concerns, however, more with Bond's state of mind, his coping with affairs, his dealing with Vespers death (it is impossible to grasp any of the content of this film without having memorised the plot to CR), his trying to tell who is friend, who is enemy, than with the plot.

Originally, the scenario must have revolved around a plot. However, the film as presented, doesn't deal with it at all. It deals with closely following Bond, with hardly any explanation regarding his whereabouts, in rollercoasterspeed. The buildup is connected to the locations. Every 12 minutes or so, Bond moves from Siena to Haiti, to Austria, to Bolivia, etc. And every 12 minutes or so, another action sequence is kick-started all over again.

I've read serious complaints on the lack of Bondness of this flick. As far as some elements (plot, irony) are concerned I can agree, partly. However, there's more to the Bond-tradition than meets the eye. And I think Marc Forster has done a tremendous job in accentuating some Bond-elements that have always been present, but always on the side. The car chase with which the movie opens is very Goldfingerish. Not to mention the oil-covered dead girl, being an obvious ode to the terrific shot (also on an hotel-bed, in the exact same angle) in that movie. The chase on the Siena rooftops takes place during the famed equestrian races. There is an opera scene that is so magnificent, that it is probably the best I've ever seen in any Bond film. It has, in all its visual splendour, "Bond" written all over it.

Apart from that continuity, it is obvious that it's not just Marc Forster who is trying to reinvent Bond. The producers have taken the recent actor-change as an opportunity to not just re-style Bond, but to make him believable, to give him (probably inspired by Bourne) a drive, an ongoing reason to be what he is. Quantum is, in that respect, a worthy follow-up to CR, which was clearly a better movie though.

For every director this 'new Bond' presents some difficulties, but also opportunities, which will make the series more interesting, less predictable, less cartoonish. The main challenge is probably to stick with irony and to steer clear from sarcasm and cynicism. Forster chose to avoid that whole area, which is, for me, the great weakness of QoS. Still, one heck of a ride: 4 out of 5.
5/10
Quantum of Solace and Gromit
McLeron9 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace in ten words or less: Bond is back to answer hanging questions from Casino Royale.

The last real eagerly awaited film of 2008 falls short of expectations and attempts to ape the Bourne trilogy by having the action scenes tell a story. While the pacing of the film is totally engaging, the film is generally unsatisfying. The plot sees Bond trying to solve the identity of the villains who coerced dead ex-lover Vesper to betrayal. He comes across a secret organisation whose identity is thrown away rather glibly by the eponymous Mr White (who was kneecapped by 007 in Casino Royale) and is led to pursue Dominic Greene, a weedy environmentalist who plans to profit from drying up water in the desert.

Generally what sets a Bond film apart from other action films are the gadgets, the car, and the little Bondian touches which give weight to the charisma of the lead, such as the scene in Casino Royale where Bond wins a knife struggle by using the old 'Look over there' fake out. The gadgets are still gone, gone is the car, and there are few Bond-esquire moments in the film, although there is a very entertaining one with a motor bike.

The film tends to disregard Bond fans by making unnecessary changes to the formula, like putting the gun barrel sequence at the end of the film instead of opening with it. Not only that, but also takes for granted that everyone in the audience is well-versed in the Bond universe as the film follows on from Casino Royale with little explanation or exposition on who Eva Green's Vesper character is and her death, which is the driving force behind Bond in this film.

Because of this it does not seem that you can enjoy Quantum without having seen Casino Royale recently beforehand, as if the Bond series has become a package deal by necessity, which was never a case before. Taking into consideration the bald villain Blofeld who murdered 007's wife in On Her Majesty's Secret Service; in the following film, Diamonds Are Forever, Bond is tenaciously hunting for him with personal interest, but his wife is never mentioned. Diamonds Are Forever succeeds in not letting any member of the audience feel disorientated by Bond's hunt, whereas Quantum fails.

The film is also unsatisfyingly short, and the shortest Bond film in the entire run at 100 minutes. And if you consider that Quantum runs on from Casino Royale, the longest in the series, it might have been more conducive if they saved Vesper's death at the end of Casino for the beginning of Quantum. This holds particularly true as Casino Royale seems to end with her and Bond together, then has a random extra twenty minutes added on to kill her off…stick those twenty minutes at the beginning of this film, you would have two films with satisfying running times, rather than one extra long and one extra short.

We all know if you are making the 22nd film in a series, repeating ideas can become an easy mistake to make but did Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have to mimic the most enduring image in Bond history, the iconic scene from Goldfinger where Shirley Eaton's Jill Masterson lies dead on a bed painted in gold (motor oil in this case)? Is this a rebuke to the capitalist desires of today? No longer do we desire gold, but oil? If they were trying to set up their own inventive, unique, and subtextually grabbing contributions to the Bond series, there are more plausible ways to create a shocking death, without sparking the ire of die hards.

I wish producers actually took time to craft a good film, rather that just setting release dates: that way Quantum's poor CGI could have been bettered. Considering that all Quantum has going for it is the action, director Marc Foster really should have seen to it that it all looked thumbs up on screen.

The film is not without its good bits however. There is a scene where you see that 007's boss M actually has to answer to someone, and that she has been defending Bond for years, maintaining that he 'gets results' which is a nice touch. Daniel Craig is adept at making 007 the witty, down-to-earth, cold-blooded killing machine we deserve. His patois with Judi Dench's M is the best developed relationship in the series, and when they are on screen together deliver the film's strongest moments. Olga Kurylenko, who looks reminiscent of Sophie Marceau's Elektra King with a bad haircut just sulks in her role, lifted identically from Carole Boucquet's Melinda Havelock from For Your Eyes Only and randomly gains a bogus foreign accent halfway through the film. The film lacks a threatening villain in Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric), a weak pale little man who looks like a cross between David Mitchell and Jools Holland and almost as threatening. At no point do we ever feel Bond is going to 'meet his match' as it were, whereas in 007 films of past we always had Bond cornered in a dire situation where if not for his wits and pain threshold would be dead.

Quantum of Solace lacks all this! But all you need to make a Bond film work is a guy who looks good in a tuxedo to have killer aim and a sexy car which fires missiles. As this film lacked the sexy car, we can only hope that they learn their lesson next time around. They have slipped up in the Bond universe, don't even get me started on the abhorrent opening credits, but if its just plain balls to the wall action you are after, you won't find much disappointment with Quantum.

Grading: B
7/10
Usual Bond, still amazing!
Marco_AGJ5 November 2009
I loved this movie, what you find here is the typical James Bond. Car chases, explosions, pretty secret agent girls, rooftop chases, bullets, absolute power seekers, stunts defying common sense, and all that. What's not to like? Ever since I first saw the introduction to Cassino Royale I knew Daniel Craig was the right man for the job, and once more he proves me right. You have to understand that I'm all Pierce generation, I grew up playing Goldeneye, always saw his movies in the cinema and actually thought his face was James Bond's face period. But now I've embraced this change, and actually enjoy very much, even more than Brosnan's movies -- except maybe Goldeneye, a guy can have his weakness.

This follows the story where Cassino Royale left off. The menaces to the planet's safety are actually all new, but James Bond still haven't recovered from the death, and betrayal, of his girlfriend in the last movie, and he is haunted by this ghost of the past during this one. The story is well developed as always, it's about a secret organization trying to control the water resources of Bolivia; it was nicely thought-out but what really shines are the moments of action, much more enjoyed if seen in the large screen. Daniel Craig, great as always, plays a more centered Bond, and seems much more lethal, especially now motivated by vengeance.

There's not much to say about this, it's a James Bond film, like many others released, except this one takes advantage of more advances in technologies and increasing development costs. Come and see James Bonds on his usual life-threatening adventures, it's worth to notice that a high definition TV and a good sound system would make you enjoy the ride a lot more.
6/10
Good Bond ... but the action was difficult to watch ....
yvettegraham19 November 2008
After eagerly awaiting to see the movie and enjoying (especially the opening sequence) of the last Casino Royale - I was very disappointed. From the opening - the sequence and song were dire - but you think - never mind .... get that out of the way and Bond will be on soon ....

However, the first sequence sets you up for a shock that will continue through all the action sequences. Why? From a cinematic point of view it was almost impossible to watch (for both myself and hubby) the action scenes. The cinematography - the speed, angles and visual impact of the camera work on the action sequences was awful! I assume that there was an attempt to get to feel more about the sequences by making you feel you were part of them - but for me, what a nightmare - I had to look away as it was so disorientating. What a waste - you could tell that there was obviously some fantastic stunt work and the car scenes too were fast and furious belted out at you from all sorts of close up - then far away - indistinguishable sections that are nearing to making you feel sick than awestruck. The angles, moving to front then way back - then the forcing you to fixate and your eyes had to figure out what you were looking at .... then the view changed and aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!! Judy Dench and Daniel were great .... not a strong plot but the film (without the action shots) was good. I hope they don't do this experiment again - the stunt sequences in the last Craig one were fantastic - you have to be able to see the work though to appreciate it ...
6/10
Quantum of Wasted Potential
jekman15 November 2008
It's always a shame when something with so much potential falls so completely flat.

And if any recent franchise entry is rife with potential, it's Quantum of Solace. In addition to having the most acting-proficient protagonist in years, its direction was handed off to Marc Forster, a brilliant director best-known for intimate character portraits such as Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner.

Which brings us to my first issue with the movie. Mr. Forster is an action neophyte, and is very, very aware of it. Instead of letting the action propel itself through motion, he uses nauseatingly quick cuts to create the illusion of momentum. Unfortunately, this completely ruins the effect of realism. The parkour scene in Casino Royale was fun because it had long takes: clearly, the actions were being performed by real human beings. In QoS, however, the cuts are so quick that it is difficult to tell what is happening, let alone what is real and what isn't.

The fact that action is the focus of the movie bothers me a great deal. Casino Royale stood out among other similar movies because of its focus on dialogue and character development. Most of my favorite scenes have nothing to do with action. Bond comforting Vesper in the bathroom comes to mind, as well as their banter on the train and in the hotel restaurant after he wins the poker game. And yet, in Quantum, the filmmakers have all but abandoned this in favor of Bourne-ish action montages.

Speaking of which, why has Bond become a superhero? I thought the filmmakers were moving away from those roots, but now he's leaping from action sequence to action sequence with hardly any recovery time! He jumps from car chase to interrogation to sewer chase to rooftop scramble with nary a meal or bathroom break. And what about the set piece with the two men swinging on ropes? The filmmaker's brainstorming session was almost visible on the screen… "I know! We can have Bond and the henchman fighting over a single gun! That's overdone? Then let's have the gun on the ground covered in shattered glass, and the men tied to ropes swinging above it!" I'm sorry, but if I can barely do a push-up after finishing Core at Four, there's no way even James Bond can brawl while hanging from a rope, immediately after a foot chase and car chase. No way.

If I had to pick a stand-out element of the movie, I would probably say the cinematography. A few shots in particular stand out in my mind, such as the direct overhead shot of Bond's car pulling into the safe house during the Palio, and the opening shot over the waters of Lake Garda. It seems like Mr. Forster was in a rush for some reason, though, because most of these shots are cut far too quickly. Which is ironic, given that this is the shortest Bond movie ever, at almost 45 minutes less than its predecessor. Is the director for some reason afraid to show off the more beautiful portions of the film? A few observations: Much of the early criticism about the film stemmed from accusations that Bond girl Camille was "dull." I agree fully, but I'm not sure this was accidental- after Vesper, I believe every other woman in Bond's life is supposed to pale in comparison.

Dominic Greene was branded as being "not villainous enough" by several critics, though I disagree. A social entrepreneur gone wrong- not only is this realistic, but it makes Greene unique when compared to other recent Bond villains.

I still dislike the opening song and title sequence, but I appreciate the meaning of the imagery… by juxtaposing the nude figures with shots of the desert (and going so far as to combine them), the void left by Vesper is being personified. Sexuality has become a desert for James Bond, because he has lost the ability to love.

I'm very disappointed with the film- I have been following its production on an almost-daily basis since March 2007- but I can't say I'm surprised. From the first teaser trailer, something felt 'off' about it, and the release of "Another Way to Die" confirmed this (that really is an awful song… I can't believe they approved that).

Let's start the countdown to Bond 23, which hopefully will be a stand-alone picture. Quantum felt too much like a vehicle to tie up the loose ends left by Casino Royale, padded by a throw-away plot to add (negligible) length. Shame- we barely got to know each other.
7/10
Gritty Hands on Bond.
enazwo14 November 2008
As most here, I was totally blown away by "Casino Royale"....and "Casino Royale" is to Bond movies what "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is to Indiana Jones....So I did kind of go in with lowered expectations....But I have to say I did enjoy the movie. Yes I did miss some of the sophisticated suave Bond stylings....yet this almost brutal..unapologetic Bond I found entertaining, distracting....and successful escapism. With that being said....I hope they don't stay with this formula...as I don't think the franchise would have ever attained the success, it has enjoyed, if it had employed this kind of dark and gritty sort of Bond...However it does make for an entertaining time at the movies...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ultimately disappointing as a Bond movie
bajgone8 November 2008
Let's get down to business and focus on the fundamentals: Daniel Craig has certainly a superb acting talent and his performance is very solid. He gave his character a new quality and previously unexplored dimension....it's just not exactly the right direction of changes. Classic Bond convention that was built on elegance and personal charm is far from Bourne's raw flicks or Die Hard's heavily beaten hero. In QoS we experience a combination - elegant rawness with heavy beating, and it does not work so well.

Script does not help, though - action is condensed and dynamic (except the finale) and there's little time to focus on the series' flavour, whereas the main villain is extremely vaguely sketched as a character.

But that's QoS - an evolution of Bond and his emotions wrapped in a turmoil of violence, chases and explosions. It's excellent that 007 has gained depth, and yes - Bond genre desperately needed realism, but the feeling is not 'Bond-ish'.

Bottom line - as far as Quantum of Solace is an exciting and intense action movie, there's simply little 007 substance.
A great end to Casino Royal.
rphoebus-324 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A great end to Casino Royal. If it were a stand-alone feature, okay... maybe light. However, considering that this Bond's revenge upon those that killed Vesper, it is a great film--simply the conclusion of Casino Royal. It is great that they are keeping the gadgets out of these films, and I hope it stays that way. Bond was and is better without the gadgets (Thunderball as best original example). My only critique of the film is that they have elected to reintroduce the typical Bond ending whereby the Evil-Doers hideaway blows up during the final sequence. If they can find a way for darker and more understated endings to these films, such as the ending of Casino Royal, I would say they have the perfected Bond's reinvention.
10/10
A great Bond, just not the one we're used to.
MattV313 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Many people may cry foul, and say that Quantum of Solace abandons too many of the traditions which the die-hard fans hold dear. Many people may ask, "Where is the Goldfinger? Where is the Octopussy?" Where is the goofy villain with some bizarre gimmick, and why does the action feel like it belongs in a superhero movie? And why the hell is the humour so dry? I thought James Bond was just supposed to spout cheesy double-entendres all day long! Quantum of Solace is not your typical Bond film. It is no exaggeration to say that it has double the action of most, if not all, of the previous Bond films, and it certainly departs from many of the customs established by the series. For example, the classic gun-barrel sequence is used at the end of the movie, as opposed to the beginning. This is not necessarily a bad thing; throughout the movie, one still feels as if Craig's Bond is not quite yet the Bond we saw played by Connery or Brosnan, but rather a work in progress. This Bond starts fights when he probably should have avoided them, and he doesn't have a neat gadget to solve all of his problems. By the end, we see that the character has gained a little wisdom, and is ready to take on the big, bad, and relatively unharmed, villainous organization that is Quantum.

Quantum expands upon what Casino Royale started; it brings us close to the characters and lets us see them grow. In Bond films of the past, we would see Bond save the world from some villainous scheme, running through the motions until he reached the inevitable conclusion of scoring the babe. Not this time. This time, we are shown why it is important that Bond succeeds; we are shown the people who will be hurt and damaged by Dominic Greene's scheme to control South America's water, and we see Bond's own hurt and growth. Characters like Judy Dench's M aren't just cute little cameos who pop in at the beginning of the film to fulfil their predetermined role, but rather are actual people. Instead of the Bond girl being some dime-a-dozen bimbo with a catchy name and simple motivation, we are presented with a real, breathing, troubled character in the form of Camille Montes.

Casino Royale may have given Bond's characters the attention they always needed, but Quantum is fuelled by its characters. The action scenes—which are phenomenal—are the unavoidable result of the characters which so vividly populate the screen. The plot doesn't necessarily take a back seat, but it feels more like a consequence of the characters' actions, and less like a contrived scheme. Again, this is a good thing. The villain has no evil lair, because it doesn't make sense for the villain to have a lair. Sure, the Bond series dictates that the villain must have said evil lair, but Dominic Greene disagrees, and it isn't up to Dr. No to decide his actions.

Quantum of Solace may disappoint some of its oldest, fondest fans. Very few of the series' conventions are obeyed, and even if they are, they are rarely adhered to in the usual manner. This does not change, however, that Quantum of Solace is a great film, equal parts action and character development, taking us into the next chapter of 007's struggle by way of the individuals on-screen. He will face Quantum, and he will do it as Bond. James, Bond.

****/****
6/10
Bond is back...but it's not his best
chancey-2315 July 2012
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in this 22nd outing for 007. The last film, Casino Royale, was so fresh in its darkness, original storytelling, and overall rooting of James Bond so we see how he got to the way he is. Quantum of Solace throws all of that out the window and declares itself an action picture, with only a few links here and there between the two films. What works is the film is it's sometimes pretty good writing, but not without its flaws. The major complaint: the tacky, sublime, ordinary villain to the piece. I thought the performance was OK, but it's just the writing that makes him so bad. Yes, I agree, the writing isn't what makes Bond films, but here it's the film's greatest strength, yet it's biggest weakness. Craig is good, the action is well done, but that's all I have to say about this one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
VERY disappointing....boring, boring, boring...
navsolutions27 November 2008
We went to the cinema last wk to see it as I've always liked Bond films. I think Daniel Craig makes a really good James Bond better than the likes of Roger Moore & Timothy Dalton they were just too nicey nicey...obviously not Sean Connery but the closest they will get I think.

Needless to say that we both enjoyed Casino Royale but as for this film.......it is just SO SO SO unbelievably boring!!! There was at least 30 mins in the middle of the film when it was nothing more than dialog and we completely switched off It's as if the credit crunch has hit Bond as well...he is seen on a clapped out old boat then a clapped out old plane, the Aston Martin was shown for only about 5 minutes at the start of the film and it was supposed to be damaged but any fool could see they had just carefully removed the door and made the car look filthy Where was the glamour? The amazing stunts and effects? The gadgets / toys? Moneypenny? M? Utter garbage and a cryin' shame IMO. I'm rating this 1 out of 10 to get the utterly crazy 7.2 rating down! No way is this any more than a 4 out of 10 film.
7/10
Misunderstood Entry to the Eon Canon
thethomasboy23 April 2015
It's surprising to me that this film is widely panned by Bond fans and critics as 'meandering' and 'aimless,' while Skyfall is heralded as 'quintessential.' Marc Forster's film is a dense, emotionally dark follow up to the straight-forward Casino Royale. Picking up exactly where the previous film left off, it takes on all the consequences and furthers the character's evolution, while slowly uncovering a shadowy conspiracy. The action sequences are stylish, from the opening car chase, to the poetic shootout at the opera; and the "Finding Neverland" director manages to mirror a character's shattered psyche like few films have.

Casino Royale was presented as a reboot to the franchise, and took us back to Bond's roots and first assignment. He only recently achieved 00 status, is raw and unseasoned, growing into his new license to kill. We see him struggling as this new level of operative, and each death affects him... since 20 films of emotional baggage are readily set aside (see: Tracy). After falling in love with Vesper, James has learned his final lesson of betrayal. Forced to divorce himself from emotions, he is now Bond, James Bond.

But he isn't. The film's 'meandering' feel reflects Bond's emotional journey, as he now is SO far removed that his superiors question his efficacy. James distances himself from others, and struggles aimlessly to find meaning to his work. He must deal with feelings of revenge while earning M's trust. He is listless. All that remains is 'the job.' Quantum of Solace (a play on a SPECTRE-like shadow organization name, as well as finding small comfort after great loss), is about Bond STILL evolving as a new 00 agent. Bond is unable to acknowledge his loss, because he doesn't know whether to blame Vesper or himself.

And the film takes us on that journey, replete with exotic locales and entertaining set-pieces. There are major political themes at play with the CIA's dealings with Greene, the West's questionable involvement with government upheaval and the convoluted nature of geo-politics. These issues mirror the inner turmoil of M as MI6 issues a capture or kill order on Bond. While trying to unravel the secret criminal network QUANTUM, following one clue at a time, he finds a kindred spirit in Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who mirrors his desire for vengeance against a Bolivian General. Bond can see the path she is destined toward and learns to deal with his issues to avoid it.

I think a lot of the displeasure with Quantum comes from the weird climax in a remote desert hotel, overuse of chase scenes (it's the only Bond film to have chases on car, foot, boat and plane), and the shallow character development including a vanilla villain. It feels like a conclusion to Casino Royale... not introducing new themes but expanding previous ones without deepening them. These shortcomings can likely be blamed on the writer's strike, which left the film feeling slightly hollow without the standard on-set re-writes.

All in all, its a two hour ride through the psyche of James-Bond-in-limbo with plenty of emotional and stylish moments. Admittedly it may not be for everyone, but if you can dial into the psychology, it may give you a slightly deeper understanding of Ian Fleming's iconic character. He is now Bond, James Bond, and ready for the far-simpler Skyfall. Sam Mendes says thank you, Marc Forster. We all do.
9/10
Fast pacing agent thriller
svenfuhrmann25 April 2020
Not as good as casino royale but in my opinion far better as skyfall which was overhyped. Quantum of solace is an action masterpiece. Gets better and better every time I saw it.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Daniel Craig's Impossible Hunt for Bond Continues
priyasdipu7 November 2008
Daniel Craig comes back as James Bond in Quantum of Solace carrying lots of pressure to match with the expectations. But he disappoints, inn fact he was much better in Casino Royale than the present one. Casino Royale had soul in it but Solace is an out straight action movie which has no soul and charm in it. A big disappointment it turned out to be for Bond lovers, that is what Quantum of Solace proves to be.

As the story continues from Casino Royale, Bond (Daniel Craig) captures Mr. White and starts interrogating him with MI6 chief, M (Judi Dench ) to find out who he works for. But they are betrayed by M's trusted bodyguard Craig Mitchell who turns out to be a traitor. With further investigations Bond heads to Haiti in search of Mitchell's contact, Edmund Slate. He kills him and searching his credentials he comes to know that Slate was hired by Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), chairman of Greene Planet and a member of Quantum to kill Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Bond follows Camille to uncover the mystery behind. Greene batters Camille with General Medrano (who once murdered Camille's family) in exchange of a barren piece of desert land in Bolivia. Bond rescues Camille and reveals Greene's secret of alleged oil supplies in Bolivia along with the General. In the mean while M losses faith in Bond and sues Bond's passport and cards. But Bond reunites with his old ally Rene Mathis and continues his investigation. Finally Camille ends up taking her revenge with the General and Bond leaves Greene stranded in the middle of the desert with only a can of oil.

Daniel Craig lacks the charm that Bond should have in him, he tries hard but fails big time. Director Mark Forster has proved to be a total disaster failing to keep himself in the cadre of making a good Bond movie. Mathieu Amalric compels you to yawn. Although it has lots of mind blowing action sequences but everything rests on a paper thin plot that makes it a complete let down. Most of the action sequences are rip off from the Bourne Ultimatum. I think it's high time for all Bond fans to make a quick transition to the Bourne Series which truly in all terms is an ultimate winner as far as spy thrillers are concerned.

Quantum of Solace has no difference between a genuine spy movie and a James Bond movie. It has nothing that a James Bond movie should consist of except for action. With lots of flaws in it Solace messes up big time, not even the Bond girls are up to the mark. And the biggest question that comes up in your mind after watching it is what's with the name?

Bond fans are definitely going to miss Pierce Brosnan after Quantum of Solace. Personally Hugh Jackman will prove as one of the best replacement for Daniel Craig as James Bond. For more movie reviews, visit me ........... incubation360.com
7/10
A crowd pleaser..... for what crowd?
trandy100121 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Many will compare this Bond film to Casino Royale and I will do likewise.

In short, Quantum of Solace doesn't measure up. Casino Royale was a triumph that transcended the traditional idea of Bond being a comical entertainment experience. It showed that a well paced story with good acting could stand tall against "filler" movies. Sure, it was controversial, but the direction that they tried to go in was good for the Bond name.

This time around they seemed to have doubled back on themselves, asking "what should be in it" rather than "what it should be". And they tried to add lots. More explosions more Guns, more action, bigger car chase, more Bond references, an extra Bond girl and more explosions. All of this would make for an excellent action movie, but a great Bond movie it does not.

This is supposed to be New James Bond, an ultimately human character with a hard mask of wit and nonchalance. But that does not show through, in QoS we are presented with the mask but not the man. The notion of a man seeking revenge and answers all together falls apart into let's stop the bad guy. There are no new insights, no new sides to the story. Instead we get an odd hybrid of brutish amateur new Bond with the cheap action of the old Bond, with none of the charm or humanity of either. Also, he was inhumanly dominant at all points in the movie, at no point was he out-gunned or outsmarted. A little unrealistic for our New Bond idea.

The film admirably tries to throwback to the old Bonds but just didn't push the point through hard enough for it to make sense and doesn't work at the same time as trying to push a hard-edged James.

Bond had the makings for a very good action adventure, but the small details kill it. A (let's face it) wimpy bad guy, lack of goons, lack of gadgets, anticlimactic ending.

I'm being a little too harsh here. This is definitely a movie worth watching, and there are definitely some excellent parts, the opera house scene that others mentioned surpasses any other Bond (even Casino Royale) in Bond-esquire operation. The action sequences are actually rather good and fun to watch, and the characters are all likable -- every one of them, well except for wimpy bad guy and his side-kick with terrible haircut. The QoS Bond theme-song is actually pretty good the second time around and the movie ties up all sorts of loose ends.

This is a great movie for anyone who has never seen Casino Royale. Those who know the brilliance that was delivered in the previous film, this movie will likely be too frantic without the desperation that is needed to carry the idea of a human "New Bond".
10/10
Bond Brilliant!
pantherboy10023 November 2008
This is the best Bond film yet. I can't believe all the haters out there. If anyone has read the original Ian Flemming books then you would know that this Bond is the original character. They haven't changed Bond, they have brought him home. In the books he was a misogynistic alcoholic with a violent and unpredictable nature. He was good looking but sort of scary and intimidating. He used brute force over gadgets to beat his enemies. It wasn't until John Gardner started writing the Bond books that Bond became more slick and charming. Bond is a bad man and an effective killer.

The action was unreal and there were a couple times I had to take a deep breath as Quantum of Solace was so intense. Both my wife and I loved it. Daniel Craig was much better in this one than in Casino Royale because he was more true to the character and didn't use so many Zoolander "Blue Steel" stares at the camera. I can't wait for more Bond films!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Should be a HELLUVA lot better
simonnj200027 November 2008
It's wrong to ask for a sequel to be as good as the first, in this case being Casino Royale, but they had so much to work with! I blame this all on this horrendous director, with his fast-paced "let's have a blast and edit every scene to half a second" directing. It's hard to follow much. All I keep reading about it is that they wanted to break away from Casino Royale and make something "different". By different, they didn't mean bad. Yeah, yeah box office numbers say one thing, but I went DESPITE my friend saying it doesn't compare to the first. I would not be surprised to find out that's why people went to this one, saying "How can you kill such a great character and plot?" Of course Daniel Craig did all he could to make it work and lots of kudos to him, but it wasn't enough. I'll stop reminiscing, but this movie is just not what people will expect. Period. If I want a ambiguous plot and pretty bad action scenes, I'll watch XXX. At lease there they don't pretend to be something else. Casino Royale did something that many people will love it for, which is treading on the thin line between a smart and great plot and action. Flipping the DBS in almost 10 seconds and making it work AMAZINGLY with the plot? Kudos to Haggis.
I was disappointed
vintagevalor-215 November 2008
I was disappointed. My wife and I went to see Qos and on the whole thought it was OK but only just .....The opening song is lousy. Unlike the theme songs for GOLDFINGER or FROM RUSIA WITH LOVE it says nothing about the story.....But then again the plot, such as it is is pretty thin. To say it is confusing would be kind. I found the villin un-villinious.....in no way was he scary or menaceing. I could knock this guy over with a finger and I'm 60 years old! Daniel Craig was fine and I think he is an excellent Bond and I wonder how he did this picture without more injurys than were reported.....However, other than run and fight and shoot people there wasn't much for him do do as an actor. Really the fault of the script. The best part of the film is the exchanges between Bond and M. And this is in no way the fault of the actors. There just isn't much of a plot.

The franchise can do better as witness CASINO ROYAL which, for my money is one of the best Bonds yet made.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mediocre, despite Craig's excellent job
willmarhoffer26 November 2008
Be forewarned that Casino Royale is in my personal favorite top 20 films...whatever that means to you. Quantum has excellent cinematography, but often it is misused. The film offers nothing unique, nothing new. We've seen everything in this movie before, often better. And this has way more action movie clichés and improbable/impossible sequences/stunts.

The locations were great, but the story terrible. Overall it was a missed opportunity by the director.

The good news is Craig is in top form. At least Bond retained his relatively newfound ruthlessness. And he is ruthless. And emotional, human, and flawed, yet suave. His interactions with every character are priceless, and his physicality is top notch.

Overall a very forgettable film about an unforgettable character.
8/10
James Bond At His Best!
nino-keskilammi1 November 2008
Quantum of Solace is the best bond movie ever made!Recommended to every one!Awesome Film!This you must see!Good story,good actors,good action,i like that and then you gonna love!A lot of action what is good!

And very entertaining! And feels like running time is 130min! Much better than

Undeniably the best action film of 2008. Bond is back with a vengeance

In short, it is an excellent film and addition to the Bond saga (while still close behind Casino Royale), with its intense, explosive nonstop action and dramatic performances. It will have a position in my Top 10 James Bond films. If you like action, do yourself a favor and see this movie. Daniel Craig proves that James Bond 007 is back, with a vengeance.

Casino Royale!10/10
6/10
Definitely not fantastic, but not one of the worst!
theonewithallthecontacts5 November 2012
Of course, the expectations were high after the masterpiece Casino Royale. Too high, perhaps! It was almost impossible for a direct sequel to Casino Royale could please everyone, and of course it didn't! I mean, i've seen it many times and calling it the worst Bond film ever, is perhaps a little fetch too far. I can think of many Bond films more worse than this (Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, The Man With The Golden Gun, Die Another Day, etc.). My point is that it's not fantastic, but it's not that bad! Yeah, he doesn't say "Bond, James Bond" at any point in the movie... but come on, you'll survive. I know, I did. However, I will say that of course there were a lack of humor, the action was so poorly edited and there were so much action, that you actually felt bored at some times! It's definitely not one of the best, but it is a decent Bond film for some, including me.

The movie starts out almost right after Casino Royale ended. That's actually a pretty cool feeling, because you don't see that often in a Bond film. Mr. White is in the trunk of Bond's Aston Martin and Bond is being pursued by two black Alfa Romeo cars. It is actually a pretty cool opening to a Bond film, but the poorly editing leaves you with a feeling, that it could have been so much better. But editing aside it's one of the more cooler Bond openings i guess. Bond loses his pursuers, and takes White out of the trunk with the words "Time to get out." A pretty cheesy and boring Bond line if you ask me. Alicia Keys' and Jack White's new Bond song swoops in on the big screen. It's OK, but kinda different. In the rest of the movie, you can clearly see that the writer's strike has gut-punched this movie. The film uses the same formula over and over; 10 minutes action, 2 minutes talk, 10 minutes action, 2 minutes talk. It's like Forster and the producers knew they couldn't pull this film off with the plot, so they tried to fill this movie with as much action as possible. The result is too much action, poorly editing and a weak plot. Not because the plot is stupid, but because it's plain boring and so not like a Bond plot should be! However if you ignore the editing, the action is decent, and the film has some beautiful settings. But the plot doesn't work.

Daniel Craig steals the show again with his brilliant portrayal of 007. Only this time it's a different kind of portrayal than in Casino Royale. He's angry, brutal, sinister-looking and revenge-driven in the whole movie, and while I think none of the other Bond actors could have pulled it off, Craig does... and with Bravour! Craig luckily doesn't disappoint. Mathieu Almaric as Dominic Greene, the film's villain, is perhaps the most BORING Bond villain ever! He is kinda nasty in the movie, with bug-eyes and all that, and while I think Forster and co. thought that would make him memorable, the whole thing just seems kinda awkward. His performance is OK, but we never actually relate to the character (talk about lack of character development, phew!). He's basically there to be a villain, and do evil things. BIG disappointment, I must say. I don't blame Almaric, though. Olga Kurylenko is a decent Bond babe. She's kinda badass, and some few emotional scenes saves her from being marked as a bad Bond babe. Gemma Arterton's performance seems kinda dry at times, and it looks like she's afraid of taking chances with her acting, and is just staying in the secure area. Judi Dench as M is good as she always is. I've always thought that Jeffrey Wright was the right choice to play Felix Leiter, and he doesn't disappoint here, luckily. Anatole Taubman and Joaquin Cosio also manages to create unmemorable villains.

Quantum of Solace isn't one of the worst Bond films, but definitely not one of the best.

6/10
9/10
Did some of you see the same film as I?
arikol8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
While I think Casino Royale was a bit better I would still count QoS as one of the best Bond films.

Complaints first: Action direction. I don't like the ultra fast editing of the action sequences and think Casino Royales style was much nicer to look at. This felt too much like Bourne (as has been noted in other comments) or Batman Begins. The exploding house at the end was not explained well and as a result seemed a bit silly. The Aston sequence at the start seemed done just to have an Aston sequence.

The Good: Beautiful cinematography in the non-action sequences. Craig IS Bond. Dench is the best M in the Bond series. The Bond girl was solid, tough and human.

Best of all was the heavy emphasis on character development. Some reviews have complained of too little, but IMO that is probably because our TV/Film viewing minds have been so numbed by banal dialogue in TV and films that we can't read a more toned down but visual medium, and get completely lost if we have to read between the lines, especially in an action film. Happily, this film decides not to treat the audience at morons and we benefit from that by getting a nice, visual film that is low on unnecessary dialogue yet furthers Bonds character quite a bit and the franchise is stronger for it.

A solid 8/10
6/10
Why would you do a James Bourne movie?
ShaDiKP1 November 2008
I don't know if I have anything to say about this movie more than that I might have fell a sleep a couple of times while watching it. I remember in the middle of it I was thinking "why is he flying that plane, and where is he going?!" It was not easy to follow Mr. this and Mr. that but that didn't matter because you didn't care anyways. It was one of the most boring Bond movies I've ever seen. Calling it a Bond movie is a matter of opinion may be, it doesn't have much "bond characteristics" its just a Bourne rip-off with a very less excitement. I don't even want to get into the title "Quantum of Solace".

Daniel Craig is on the other hand a cooler Bond than his former colleges, he fights better looks better and less "Bond, James Bond". I liked the effects though and I respect the choice of not using too much digital effects, that made the action scenes feel real.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great acting, horrible editing
mloberle27 May 2021
The horror of the title song aside (jack white should never again be allowed to write a title sequence), the direction and editing of this movie is nauseating. Daniel Craig and Co are superb as always. A wasted opportunity for an otherwise great Bond film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
for real?
igor-muller29 November 2008
oh people come on. i watched the film, and i was absolutely ready for a bad film, mostly because i don't like Krylenko. now movie started and the first action scene wasn't appealing to me - MTV style, Bourn style, w/e. not cool.

but after that, movie start building itself, and i started to like it. mostly because, like a lot of people mentioned, this is a different bond, and its a way more realistic one. no gadgets, no stupid shooting scenes, all stunts are very well thought out and realistic. you, you complain about it? like you wanted a Bond, James Bond every 20 minutes in this movie too? Shake, not stir? now that would make this film horrible. this franchise is old, it needs something new, jokes told over and over are not that funny. and this film delivers it, the new idea. and i for one liked it, i dislike the editing, yes, but the whole movie is nice.

its not epic, like someone said Oh No Bond Is Not Saving The World but a people in some 3rd world country. oh i see saving world of course is so much more important then helping people in a some god forgotten Bolivia :D

I would recommend this movie to pass an evening, just not if you are hardcore old school bond fan, then, yes, you will miss gadgets, sexual jokes, stirring, shaking, etc. if you want to see a well filmed movie with a questionable editing that still delivers - shoot it.
3/10
No solace in the plot
J_Cheever_Loophole15 November 2008
The movie proves, if proof was needed, that endless action sequences are no substitute for a half decent plot.

You'd think that a franchise like the Bond movies would have access to the very best in story and script writers, but it seems not. There is almost no plot to speak of and the film lurches, uncomfortably from one location to another with little reason other than to provide exotic backdrops. Dialogue has never been a great strength in Bond movies but in 'Quantum' it plumbs new depths and is contrived and flimsy.

It's also a bit disappointing that the film doesn't have a Bond atmosphere to it. Whilst the move away from gadgets and towards a 'harder' edge, is good, they could at least have used the Bond theme music to remind us occasionally that this is Bond and not Bourne that we're watching.

The lack of anything resembling a plot probably explains why the film is 40 minutes shorter than most Bond exploits and it's stretch even at 90 odd minutes.

On the plus side; Craig is excellent and the action scenes are good. But you just don't really care anymore after about an hour.

After the terrific 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum' is a big let down. I sincerely hope Craig's era in the role isn't going to go the same way as Brosnan's after the classic 'Goldeneye'.
7/10
Bond is reBourne
phillwillkill6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a very good action film. But it isn't Bond as you know it. Let me explain. Firstly a lot of the traditional Bond themes are no where to be seen. No Gadgets. No Q. No Cheesy one liners. No Moneypenny. And this is no bad thing for the most part. What you get is a darker more realistic Bond. Like the rejuvenated Batman films Bond has gone darker, grittier and in my opinion better. Central to this is Daniel Craig's portrayal of 007, he is brooding, blunt, brilliant and exciting to watch. He exudes an aura of a man trying to punish those who are responsible for his lost love from Casino Royale. It goes some way to explain why Bond is so cold and distrustful towards his many women conquests, who would want to go through that again? One of the reasons Craig is so exciting to watch is that most of the action and fight sequences feel like they have been lifted straight from the Bourne trilogy. Again this is no bad thing as it was about time the flagging Bond franchise was injected with a bit more realism and some adrenaline. Quantum of Solace follows directly on from Casino Royale with everyone's favourite British agent out for revenge or fulfilling his duty depending on who you want to believe. You should definitely watch Casino Royale prior to watching Quantum of Solace as this film starts fast and rarely slows down, and at well under two hours is a good length for an action flick. Because it dovetails so well with the first of the Daniel Craig's excursions as Bond it feels more like a sequel or continuation of a trilogy than it does a stand alone movie- it is because of this it again feels more like Bourne than 'classic' Bond. If you are a fan of classic Bond you may not like this newer take on the series as you probably don't like Bourne either. Trust me though Bond is better for being like Bourne and moving away from the blandness and boredom of last few under Brosnan's stewardship. Bond is back, but Bourne is still better- however I expect the gap to close again and Bond to start having more fun and maybe one cool gadget in the next instalment, which I am eagerly anticipating on the back of this film.
1/10
White saviour returns
sanskar-2604011 June 2021
Tie your worst enemy to chair and put him close to a screen, he will OD himself with a headache. The story old story of a white guy "saving" a "barbaric" nation, with a whining girl by his side, chii.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond takes a backslide
brad-5115 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can say I have not been as disappointed in a film in a long while as I was in "Quantum of Solace." From start to finish, the film was just plain poor. QS is plagued from start to finish with hyper-kinetic editing reminiscent of a Jason Bourne film. The on-screen action is difficult, if not impossible, to follow. The plot is muddled to the point of being incomprehensible. Water? Oil? Sand? Neal Purvis & Robert Wade have proved that, without an Ian Fleming novel to follow, they should not be allowed to craft any more Bond screenplays. All of the usual Bond elements that devoted viewers expect are either non-existent or sublimely sub par. The opening title and theme song? Poor. The Bond girl? Unnecessary. The villain? Ineffectual at best. At least the film does not turn into a self-parody like the latter Moore-era films. Daniel Craig is a terrific actor, but his Bond is trapped in a constant state of "Dalton-esque" peevishness.

One scene sums up the entire film. There is a shot of a young woman laying stretched out on a bed, dead and covered in crude oil. It is a blatant slap at the famous "Goldfinger" scene in which Jill Masterson was covered in gold paint. The symbolism here is striking. The franchise, once a precious metal in the film landscape and saved from death by the far-superior "Casino Royale," is now being blackened and polluted as one of so many brainless action films of the current era. This fan can only hope that "James Bond Will Return" to glory with the next installment.
9/10
Misunderstood Classic
proudbjatt5 July 2021
QOS is my view the most misunderstood and under-appreciated Bond film.

Most people do not view it as it was meant to be, as a direct continuation of Casino Royale. It encapsulated and then concluded that unfinished story line wonderfully, with a lot of emotional nuace combined with amazing action and a tightly knit plot.

I see that the fast cuts weren't appreciated by a lot of people, but personally, the film and sound editing had me completely involved in the action, and I love watching this film for that reason. Compare it with the action in the subsequent Bond film Skyfall, you miss that visceral energy.

I personally loved Bond's journey to closure with Vesper, the writing which showed his commitment to his duty in the midst of personal turmoil, his endearing and tragic friendship with Mathis, and his almost platonic relationship with the leading Bond girl which was unusual and effective, as they both in a sense helped each other heal.

This film should be viewed right after Casino Royale or soon after for the optimum experience, but even as a standalone film, it is exponentially better than it is given credit for.
10/10
look at the full part
salospider25 December 2008
first of all i like the movie. i watch bond since i was a kid from "Dr. No" till " Quantum of solace" I'm a very very very big fan of 007. second lets look at the movie by a different way...i think its the second sequel in bond movies, and in all bond movies the events is kind of predictable ... the villain do bad thing, then the world be upset the the ask bond for help then he meet Q who give him the weapons just as he knew the predicament that will bond fall in then he use the villain's girl to get to him then the villain say "hello Mr bond...i guess u know miss ....." and it seems that the villain know every thing about them and about bond specially and he prepared him self against bond plans. BUT... bond made what the villain wasn't ready for and the girl help him and then the genius villain losses it all in a second as if the lose his genius mind just for bond will, and at the end bond and the girl make out....the end. but for "Casino Royal" and "Quantum of Solace" it different all is new we see bond losses and wins hit so bad injured loses his love and u feel he is sad for this (for the first time u feel at the end he is not very happy). u see also bond is fast, good in shape for a 00, depend on him self not Q gadgets without improvisation keep loving the girl in the second movie too not forget her just to see the new girl, also bond making mistakes cover them by hard ways. he kills ...WHY????? because he want to revenge, angry, restless(the movie begins just from the Mr. White kidnapping spouse he didn't have rest from Vesper died till Quantum of Solace" ends). after all Daniel Craig is the best to do 007 till now, Casino Royal is the best Quantum of Solace is the second. keep up the changes is good, amazing. i love it. for any comment send me on my mail salospider@gmail.com thanks
2/10
This is an abuse of the 007 franchise
suncusser28 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There are many deficits in this movie. The title song is one of the first, it's clearly 22nd in order among all the Bond movies. Its discordant and miserable. As for the movie, lots of action, very little explanation. They went for grit and gave up any attempt at clarity. The only ones who can follow what is going on must be those that have a script in hand. I prefer Bond to be escapism and not just escaping. This version is a series of action sequences around a very ill-defined set of bad guys. A few more minutes explanation in this movie would have been useful. Bond wanders the earth without passports or credit cards and can still get into countries and fancy hotels. There are apparently direct flights between Italy and Bolivia that one can board without ID. There is a nice ecological hotel in the desert that is apparently build out of explosive materials. Apparently there is a vast underground water supply under the desert of Bolivia that no one has ever found and that the CIA thinks it is likely to be oil. I'm used to suspending belief an logic in movies but not on this scale. It used to be that a 007 movie was a sure thing for buying a movie ticket, I'm suspending that belief until they prove they can actually tell a good story.
7/10
Bond & Craig delivers again
sxchoc1 November 2008
For a film franchise that's been going for as long as 'Bond' has it's amazing that anything 007 still manages to polarise opinions. I think that there are lots of people that really need to get over themselves in regards as to who is best bond, should there be one liners, not enough gadgets, etc etc. And just accept the film for what it is and accept that the franchise has had to reinvent itself many times and if it continues many times again in the future. Some you'll like some you won't.

Anyways....I went to see QOS without much expectation and was pleasantly surprised to find that Craig as Bond delivers again on his benchmark performance in CS. The relationship between M and Bond is further enhanced, the dialogue is sharp (although some lines can be lost due to the action going on around), the sets are as realistic (and destroyed with gay abandon), the lack of wanton bedroom scenes is minimised, the action scenes are as wild as to be expected - although I was left after a couple thinking exactly what happened there.

The film almost reverts to type though although this isn't the classic madman trying to rule the world from his subterranean cavern and certainly isn't going to win any Oscars anytime soon, not as classy as CS but upon reflection I can't wait for Craig to reprise his role as only now do you feel that Craig 'is' Bond and that his 'real' missions are about to begin.

And remember this isn't Bourne it's Bond and we all know deep down that nobody does it better.
5/10
Better than Spectre
vmk-0767425 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I always thought this was an average movie,not as terrible as some say but certainly not good.But it is really better than spectre. The action sequences and editing is all messed up which makes this movie look bland and thrown together.But I dont find the plot to be that bad,the motive of the villain was convincing and I liked his plan.Greene(the antagonist) himself is not that bad,to all the haters out there I think he did a good job.He is just a toned down version of Le Chiffre.The problem is with Bond and his girl.James Bond is no longer a suave and dutiful(?) agent who saves the world while having his own fun,he is a killing maniac.And unfortunately Craig fits the bill of a soulless killer perfectly.Bond is a killing machine,emotionless and cold and he looks like he is half dead.You hate him a lot in this movie.The main female lead is no different,a mere vengeful killing machine. There was no need for Mathis and Felix to be in this.Apart from all the obvious cons I just stated this movie was pretty salvageable.It is a good movie,just executed poorly.Watch Spectre again before this and you wont hate this so much.
10/10
Craig is best Bond ever
crazyeal13 April 2009
I've seen all the bond movies and am a fan of them all. I think that Quantum of Solace is the best there is. I love the cinematography, as each shot seamed to be carefully framed as a piece of art work. The colors, the angles, and the costumes were all perfectly chosen and put together on screen.

Craig is the perfect specimen for the full effect. He's perfectly masculine for the part. The flaws in him only add to his performance on screen. We can't take our eyes off of him. In Q of S he looks perfectly fit and smart (better than in Casino Royale, where he was a bit too muscle bound).

I didn't find the action too choppy as many have criticized. I found it fast paced and exhilarating to watch--which is the point of the movie.

I look forward to more Daniel Craig as Bond.
4/10
Bond Movie????
gravinacoy16 November 2008
you are right, it's a good action movie but a terrible bond movie, get no style.

The actor is not good looking said my wife.

Bonds before Craig were always good looking and great charming with girls.

In all the movie he was Deshevelled, the movie fights were more violent and without the oo7 touch.

The music and all movie style for a Vin diesel movie excellent.

maybe the director copy the style from him but missing tattoos.

Only at the end i can listen the classic bond music
9/10
Bond continues in the right direction and gives Casino Royale the closure it deserves.
matt190078 November 2008
If you are going in expecting Die Another Day, Goldeneye or any of the Bond films previous to Daniel Craig, you are not going to get it here. In fact Quantum of Solace has little in common with many Bond films but for fans of Casino Royale who want more of the story, Quantum of Solace does continue in that vein providing much need closure to Vesper's story whilst leaving tantalising questions about the shadowy Quantum organisation that are certain to be answered in future Bond movies. In fact, after I had seen Quantum of Solace, I have no particular desire to watch Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore or George Lazenby in the role of 007 ever again - quite an achievement by Daniel Craig, considering I love all of the Bond films.

Daniel Craig cements his place at the top of the tree of Bond actors with only Sean Connery matching him as the iconic 007 and Craig makes any misgivings in the plot of Quantum of Solace irrelevant through his superb portrayal of a man in search of revenge. Quantum of Solace was never meant to stand alone as a Bond movie and without Casino Royale, it would be confusing, but as a sequel, the film does tie up some loose ends in the plot whilst allowing the Bond producers to give Vesper's death a little closure, even though the shadowy Quantum organisation is still very mysterious and questions still need to be answered.

Camille is a great Bond girl as she is a woman on a mission of her own who is helped by Bond and the relationship between 007 and M is also a very interesting one here. Bond seems to be something of a loose cannon who gives M some problems but the hotel scene shows, she has trust and faith in her top agent even when others do not. Felix Leiter, for only the second time is portrayed by the same actor more than once and I feel that Jeffrey Wright is growing into the part and the Bond producers should ensure that he continues to play the part in the future. Mathieu Amalric plays something of a subdued villain in this movie and whilst not being as memorable as Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, he is a good addition to the film in the role of Dominic Greene. Jesper Christensen reprises his role as Mr. White and would be a good character to return in future Bond films or at least one more.

Marc Forster is maybe not my choice to direct this film and for people who only see the film once, it's an assault on the senses in the way that the action is shot. Shaky cam in places, the action is very up close, personal and it's sometimes hard to distinguish details, making it an acquired taste. On my second viewing however, it wasn't as bad, still very visual but I feel that the film and the conclusion of the "Vesper storyline" may have benefited from the return of Martin Campbell, the best Bond director in years.

A minor complaint I have is the input that Ford is having in Bond movies these days. Simply because they own Aston Martin, they are forcing the producers to integrate Ford's into 007 films in exchange for use of Aston Martin cars. This is OK in discretion but the Ford KA seemed completely out of place, more so even than the VW Beetle Camille ends up in later on and Bond really should never be behind the wheel of an economy car. His popularity has grown through his association with Aston Martin, Omega, Bollinger Champagne, etc. Ford does not fit into this high class world.

I feel that Bond 23 will follow a new path, featuring and uncovering more of the Quantum organisation. I would like to see the return of Camille too as I feel she may have more to offer. The way Quantum of Solace pans out gives me the impression that we could be getting Moneypenny back in the next Bond film too. Whatever happens though, the Bond franchise is definitely on the up and better for the existence of Quantum of Solace. With Daniel Craig, 007 is in very safe hands and it is inevitable that in due course, he will surpass Connery in popularity polls worldwide if he is given enough Bond films to properly establish himself in the character.

Watch and re-watch Quantum of Solace and then look forward to Bond 23 with even more enthusiasm, 007 isn't back. In the words of Daniel Craig's Bond in his latest adventure "I never left" 8.5/10
7/10
QoS suffers from Marketing Directors!
ksundstrom25 July 2010
This comment is more about the conflict between the intellectuals and the marketing people of the film. So the comments are more directed toward the management of the new James Bond series starting with Casino Royal. Casino Royal was clearly a success, 9/10, primarily because of the intellectual input. The follow-up Quantum of Solace clearly suffered from the marketing influence. Public opinion with a preference for action that dominates has determined the film QoS. Mass public for action 70-80%, compared to 20% intellectual of public opinion surveys. (Proportions, uncertain, are known clearly by the marketing people.) However the reputation of James Bond is primarily determined by the intellectuals. IMDb full synopsis is essential reading. The action in the film is too fast, too fragmented between places and people, dialogue too truncated. So, in my opinion, the management of the film have done themselves a disservice in going almost all out for action and relegating the intellectual story line and dialogue to a minor role. Hopefully, Casino Royal made more money than Quantam of Solace has done so far. If so the the action wildies have also appreciated the intellectual strong story line of Casino Royal. Food for thought for the James Bond management. The literature of James Bond series is, in my opinion, down the path of the intellectuals, which just confirms the original intention of the author! (You have my permission to send this comment to the management of the James Bond series.) Yours sincerely, KSundstrom (Nice,France)
8/10
I never noticed a director's influence on a movie so much
xwaterskier15 November 2008
I think Craig is outstanding as Bond and although I'm not ready to take Connery's crown away as "Best Bond," I might be one movie removed from that decision. As much as I liked Craig and thought the plot itself was solid, I have to say I've never been so upset with a director before in my movie-viewing life.

I don't know who else to blame other than the Editor, for the way the action sequences appeared on screen. Perhaps the scenes didn't turn out the way they'd hoped and they had to resort to shaky shots and quick, choppy edits to hide mistakes in the background? Whatever the reason, the filming of the action sequences was terrible and hurt the rest of the movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A great movie by itself!
mohan_noone17 April 2009
I saw the movie after reading a lot of mixed reviews. Pleasantly surprised that it was indeed a great watch, boldly different from a typical "Bond movie" - and I thought that worked just fine. The action sequences are superb, and though the movie was overall fast paced, I did not find it difficult to follow the story line. Yes, Bond does not have his usual gamut of gadgets - once again this was one thing I did not miss! The film tries to portray the conflict in the mind of the character and does this admirably well. Overall, I felt that the movie succeeds at many levels by itself - as long as one doesn't try to compare it with the "Bond" wagon!
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
All action, no substance
jenjentaro9 June 2016
I don't know what to think of James Bond anymore. I longer I watch, the more I feel the movie lacks substance. It's just all action action action. For example, every possible chasing scene was explored in this one. There was a chase by car, by foot, by boat, and then by plane. Yes I admit the action sequences are visually great to look at, but if you take away the action, there's not that much left of the film. If only there's a plot twist or more suspense in the actual story.

And compared with other spy movies (such as Mission Impossible series), James Bond doesn't even have much cool tech. Yes, James Bond is cool in the sense he's ruthless. But almost everyone he meets dies. Either he kills them or others kill them. He steals, he squanders money on luxurious lifestyle, and he leads women on. He's very costly, in both money and human resources, to maintain! Yet strangely enough, he's still awfully popular. I say it's got to be those suits and being British.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Disappointing
barrysheene8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is far away from Casino Royale. Casino introduced a new bond, but kept some traditions and humor of the previous one. Quantum of Solace goes in a wrong direction and show us a totally unknown 007: no humor, no mercy, no "My name is Bond. James bond". And the plot is very confused, a lot of action but few else. Some points are very difficult to understand i.e why a modern building can explode and goes on fires like an old wood house or as a Alfa Romeo can compete with an Aston Martin, maybe Bond drives really bad. I don't like too that Bond movies start to use vulgarity in speeches. Casino royale was fantastic because it made Bond more up to date, but kept the atmosphere. Quantum is something between John Rambo and Jason Bourne. The history of Bond movies has many bad movies, these is one of them. We hope for the next one.
8/10
No Bond, but who cares
smits5915 October 2012
Quantum of Solace has close to nothing to do with the James Bond of latter days. This James Bond is not an English scoundrel in a fun world. He is just an silly American action hero with an English accent. But as action flicks go; this is not an unpleasant movie. Poor plot, pointless villain and lack of love-interest for Bond are made up for by an action packed roller coaster. So if you expect an other true Bondmovie you will be disappointed. But for an evening mindless action entertainment this is just fine. Daniel Craig plays an fine action hero. There's a lot of production even though the CGI is sometimes a bit too evident.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Welcome back old nonsensical Bond - you weren't missed
IanGlover7 November 2008
This film really feels like a throwback to the 70's and 80's Bonds instead of the new and grittier 'reboot' version. There is no plot to speak of and instead we have a series of tired, uninspired action sequences (it certainly follows the rule that if you run out of ideas add a fight or explosion). A side effect of this is that the more realistic, painful action of Casino Royale has given way to extended sequences that have little consequence on the people involved.

I have heard that the writer's strike meant that no script was ready by the time shooting started, but if that is the case they should have just waited until it was ready. There are three writers credited on this film and I can only suspect that they each contributed one word to the (frankly rubbish, I don't care if is a Fleming original) title and one word to the phrase 'Bond is Angry'.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lacking Originality and Continuity
cmkeenan15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was one of the worst Bond film I am aware of on several grounds; namely storyline, continuity, originality, character development, action sequences, editing, and direction. I was thoroughly disappointed.

Am I wrong, or doesn't 007 just deal with the really bad guys? The main "villian" if you will was basically trying to rape Bolivia of its natural resources. Hardly scary IMO. Who cares about Bolivia, really? If all of the Bond villains in the series of movies had their full plans come to fruition, Greene would probably be the least scary.

Part of the story's weak points can be attributed to the continuity of the film. Why did Mathis die? Why did Strawberry Fields die? No good explanations. As soon as Mathis died, Bond started driving, to get a plane? Really? And what was the deal with the whole fuel cell hotel in the middle of nowhere? A little explanation couldn't hurt. Most Bond films are over 2 hours, and there is a good reason for the length. The audience needs some sort of explanation and closure of why things are happening. Otherwise, we're left trying to figure out why things happened the way they did rather than sit and enjoy the movie.

Originality was non-existent. There have been better car chases, foot races, and boat chases all in other Bond movies. The plane scene was pretty weak too. I find it hard to believe that any halfway decent pilot in an agile plane can get taken out by the one Bond was in. Every action scene was poor, and was done better in other Bond movies. And as for the tribute to Goldfinger with Strawberry Fields' death... just plain dumb.

Character development was poorly done. I learned nothing new about any other characters aside from Bond. And apparently, the director wasn't interested in their lives. Camille's story was pathetic. Mathis' character was alright in the 10 seconds it took him to die. M was boring. Elvis was the most pathetic henchman to grace the Bond series.

Aside from the action sequences lacking in originality, they were also poorly filmed and edited. I can't believe this film cost over $200 million. I thought one of the best action scenes from Casino Royale was the construction/crane chase/fight. You were never in doubt who was punching who, and who was chasing who. In Quantum of Solace, everything was a blur. There were no continuous shots of what was actually going on, so you were left trying to figure out which body double was who throughout the entire action sequence. Its almost like they tried to copy the worst action parts of The Dark Knight into this film. Was this film screened in front of normal individuals? I'm left to wonder.

The editing of the movie as a whole was just bad. There is no excuse for the lack of explanations and continuity of this movie. With the budget given, the director and editors should be ashamed of themselves. I hope this director does not work on another Bond film. It might take quite a bit for this series to recover from the blow dealt to it by Forster.

I expect to leave a Bond film completely pumped up. I left angry, feeling like I just got robbed out of what could have been a great movie. To be honest, this film could have benefited from an additional 20-30 minutes in the right areas to help continuity and action sequenes, and a different overall edit of the material. If it were done right, It would have the potential to be a 7-8/10. Instead, the director presented a second rate film.
4/10
Lack of story and lazily paced!
Aodhanrooney24 October 2017
A promising direct sequel to the classic 2006 Casino Royale, is what fans hoped for, but sadly not. Quantum of Solace lacks what made Casino Royale a noteworthy reboot to the Bond series. Solace basically covers all the areas of flaws from fast and lazily edited action scenes to fast and lazy pacing - followed by poor production material. It was no doubt, a rushed project. Though, the whole intriguing background of the Quantum organisation (the main worldwide terrorist organisation in the movie) is interesting and offers many expectations, there doesn't seem to be enough here to arouse satisfaction, as the movie also suffers from lack of character development. Also, the new villain Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric, is a top member of Quantum and an oil businessman, but no were near one of the finest Bond villains. Given its shortened run-time of 104 minutes (making it the shortest Bond movie to date), there's not even enough development for familiar faces returning from Casino Royale: Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Jesper Christensen and Giancarlo Giannini. Overall, Quantum of Solace was rushed due to the Writer's Strike of 2007-08. Following the success of the next Bond movies, Skyfall and SPECTRE, there will always be another Bond adventure!
8/10
Quite fantastic although clearly a sequel
phoenixdarklighter14 November 2008
This movie was very well-written and the acting is pretty great. Personally I've never been a fan of Daniel Craig as Bond, but he really takes the name in a whole new direction. It's a much darker Bond and you can see some uncaring sides of him that make you say, "I can't believe he just did that," but its entertaining nonetheless. The action scenes are wonderful and it really puts Bond back to some of his finer days. The story starts kind of predictable and so it seems slow at the start, but it picks up and becomes quite a thrill through every scene and really turns out to be a great movie. If you don't remember Casino Royale too much, like myself, there are a lot of references to it that you may not understand. It's a great story but there just always seems to be a gigantic hole in certain places if you haven't seen the previous movie. It's entertaining and has a good story so it definitely gets a great rating, but it would have gotten a better one if it didn't clearly try to be a sequel.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It has the curse of a sequel, Never better than its predecessor
leeallen0121 November 2008
I have seen every Bond film from the beginnings' Casino Royale to Craig's era and have to say that out of the seven actors including David Niven that have played Bond, Daniel Craig is, in my opinion, as good as Sean Cannery's depiction. I have learnt from growing up with the Bond franchise that there are two different types of Bond. You have the interesting, suave, sexy, brooding killer that hooks you to the screen and makes you feel in danger and they are played by Connery, Dalton and Craig. Then you have the hilarious, Witty, Sexy, cool and gadget, girls and Q filled Bonds played by Moore and Brosnan. I'm not even going to get into Lazenby who quite frankly was the worst Bond ever and although I did enjoy On Her Majesty's Secret Service, his Bond was a joke that spoke to the camera. To get back on point I have to say that I think Casino Royale is up there as one of the best Bond films of all time with Diamonds are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me, Licence to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies, but Quantum of Solace, no offence to Craig was as bad as Octopussy. The cinematography was messy and horrible, the action was bafflingly unwatchable and the story was, when understood finally after further reading, absolutely pathetically simple. Mark Forster should never have directed a high profile Film such as this which requires a lot of responsibility. They say they've removed Bond's iconic trademarks like the Bond girls, the Gadgets, the cars, the Q's and the Money penny's because Bond has to earn them first, but I think they've also removed Bond and replaced him with Jason Bourne. In my opinion the Bond movies should be made by British film makers, British directors and written by British writers because it's getting too Americanised and with no offence to America which is fantastic at making interesting and exhilarating Films, they're just not good at making Bond films and therefore the next Bond should star Craig because he is fantastic, taking Bond right back to the beginning and making him vulnerably charming, but it should be an original story of Bonds original iconic status, the double O agent, serving her majesty and protecting her ideas and the world from evil, ironically scarred villains and why not in the mean time get some women, shoot some bad guys and use some ridiculously imaginative gadgets in the process, that make Bond what he is. To some up, Quantum of Solace is not a Bond film and should never have been called one but it is a good film, just not worthy of the Bond title. If you object then think about this scenario, a film director called Mark Forster decides to make an action film called Quantum of solace with the protagonist called special agent Steven Johnson of the British Government, whilst Martin Campbell makes another epic Bond after his Casino Royale, which one would make the big bucks as they say? The action film exactly the same as quantum of solace but not called a James Bond film or Campbell's follow up Bond film called Ian Flemings 007 James Bond in… My votes on Campbell's.
6/10
Moderate, but not an awful Bond film
mhendrickx1 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, I have to be honest. When I first saw this Bond movie I was a bit disappointed. However Daniel Craig did a fantastic job in his first Bond movie Casino Royale, so it wouldn't have been easy to do better on his next film.

The film is mounted in a fast way. Sometimes too fast, if I'm honest. For instance: the car chase at the beginning of the movie is an incredible bit of craftsmanship but this just goes too fast. Also a few characters in the movie barely have the time to develop their selves. For instance General Medrano.

I think the general disappointing feeling of this film can be related to the director of the film, or at least the way they see Bond. Martin Campbell, who directed Casino Royale and Goldeneye, is more of a story teller. He really wants to tell a story within the film. this is the case with both Goldeneye and Casino Royale where there is a clear storyline involved. Along with the storyline, there's of course the usual Bond action involved.

On the other hand, there's Marc Forster, the man who directed this film, Quantum of Solace. Forster is a director who puts more effort into making this Bond film spectacular. In fact he tries to make it so spectacular that the storyline is a bit forgotten. After all: the film is just about Bond wanting to take revenge for the things that happened in Casino Royale and that's pretty much it.

However, there's no need to be only negative about this movie. A lot of actors did an amazing job trying to make the film as spectacular as possible. For instance there's this great ending battle between Dominic Greene and Bond, and also the battle between Camille and General Medrano. I also like the way Bond drops Dominic Greene in the middle of nowhere. It's, in my opinion a better and more inventive way to get rid of the evil than Bond for instance "just" killing the African generals in Casino Royale.
3/10
Not Bond, Action
ambrosewriter3 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me be perfectly clear, this was not a Bond film. It was an action film. This film comes off more as the search for Vheissu from the Pynchon novel, V. Daniel Craig was clearly out of his element; he lacked any suaveness, and, more importantly, he actually showed emotion towards women. Bond's defining characteristic was his undying chauvanism, but in this film, he dropped that attitude for one of respect to women. The plot was, at best, barely existent and towards the end, it became one meaningless sequence after another until it finally ends with a scene that should have ended Casino Royale. The lack of the Bond theme was also disturbing. You may think it nitpicky, but the theme was always a central part of the movie and was always melded to be a part of the film. The director tried to add a sense of depth to the film, especially during a sequence which is tied to the opera Tosca. Bond movies has simplistic directing, tending to focus on merely the characters. This pretension of loftiness only left the viewer with a sense that something inane just happened. They are right. Quantum of Solace bypassed the Bond playbook and tried to pass itself of as a second rate action film, which it succeeded in. It traded suaveness for ruggedness; delightful misogyny for a romantic subplot; simple escapist fun for pretensions of higher film-making. This movie was a disappointment for a strong Bond fan. 6/10 Mediocre
6/10
Too clever for its own good
terryhall226 December 2008
I liked Casino Royale and I like Daniel Craig as James Bond. He adds a rawness that coiffed Pierce Brosnan never could. But, is it me or are the Bond Girls getting rougher? Where's the glamour, the stunning beauty of the scenes? Lake Garda, Siena, two beautiful spots totally ignored. I wanted to watch the movie because I had read it was filmed in Lake Garda where I used to live. If I hadn't known the arches round the lake where the car chase took place, it might as well have been anywhere. And what was that chase about? Chopping and changing scenes like I was on a boat in the high seas did nothing to keep my attention. Did I care about the agent in Cuba? No. Did I care about the major criminal? No. (who was it?) Did I care about Bond himself? No. He had become a killing machine like the Terminator. Even the music was a hash, though I can understand this since Amy Winehouse pulled out last minute. Judi Dench always adds acting class and that's really all I remember. I hate seeing things being blown up for no reason and the last scenes felt like it was done just for the sake of it. Instantly forgettable plot. Hint to action film directors: let the action happen as if it is happening to the viewer. Have a plot. Resist the snazzy camera angles and stop filming so close up.

Usually going to James Bond is an cinematographic event. It's a shame this was just explosions and bad editing. Perhaps the next movie will be better.
7/10
Not a bad film, but doesn't deliver a proper Bond film
MAShead072 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Definition of a Bond film: A sophisticated spy story, injected with humour, gadgets, sex, action and locations to provide the viewer with a fun and escapist experience.

Does Quantum of Solace deliver this? Not really.

Though many complain about the plot, I think it's interesting, though confusing. Many twists and turns, but likely to lose you, and the emphasis on deceit and politics isn't really what I want from a Bond film.

Very little humour, taking away an element of fun that has been ever-present in it's 21 predecessors. No tongue-in-cheek at all, I'd even go so far as to say this is a "serious" film. One of the first words leaping to mind about a Bond film should not be serious.

Gadgets...what gadgets? Just some stuff you could pick up from a Sony shop (though M's table was impressive!)

Sex- not much going on here either, it's over in a couple of minutes, very poor quality. Of the two beautiful women he stars with, Bond instead spends the last scene with M!

Action, pretty good, though as many here have acknowledged, the filming technique for the car/boat chases was irritating and didn't really deliver. Some of the fights were good, but where's that fun edge to the fights that every Bond BUT Craig has managed?

Locations: Very impressive. The locations, sets and music score are the only things faultless in this film.

To conclude, a Bond film that doesn't deliver what you really want and expect from a Bond film, though it has its moments.
6/10
"When You Can't Tell Your Friends from Your Enemies, It's Time to Leave!"
rhiron23 November 2013
The first time I watched 'Quantum of Solace', I was nonplussed.

The promise of a 007 adventure being a direct sequel to the previous instalment was, for this franchise, thrilling and unusual. The last time one adventure was something of a sequel to the last (i.e. Diamonds Are Forever (1971)), things went terribly wrong, even slipping into inexcusable tacky campiness.

Thankfully, 'Quantum of Solace' does not get things quite that wrong, but it is hardly a credit to the film that gave birth to it, 'Casino Royale' (2006).

The teaser trailers were full of the promise of a tense semi-political action film, unlike anything seen in the Bond canon before. It seemed that the best thing about the film was, indeed, the vagueness of the trailers, which created such an intensity and anticipation that made this a must-see film. But, running at a shorter length than 'Dr. No' (1962), this film left a lot to be desired.

Daniel Craig, however, was again on form with a dark, edgy and human portrayal of Bond - the Bond of the novels, devoid of his dependence on Q-Branch and cheesy one-liners, even though Craig does have some briefly (and oddly) humorous, if not hysterical, lines dotted around the place.

The film, as said, should have been the successful second chapter to 'Casino Royale', but ended up detracting from that film. Scenes in which the writers clearly intended Bond to be bitter about his tragically lost love, Vesper Lynd, instead convey denial and ignorance on Bond's part - almost as if the writers had forgotten the subtle intricacies of the previous adventure, which they had also scripted!

The editing is also awful, making the film almost un-watchable as Marc Forster takes a hand-held camera to most scenes and chops and changes between shots so much that it is confusing as to what is happening on screen. In fact, the pre-credits car chase is filled with so many references to previous Bond car chases (mostly those conducted in a Lotus Esprit or a Citroen 2CV) that it is blatantly clear how Forster had no experience directing an action flick - he simply drew on the inspiration of his predecessors to craft a half-decent Bond film. Dialogue scenes also suffer incredibly from this tendency to imitate the Bourne films and, whilst Bourne can carry it off by hosting quite understandable exposition scenes, 'Quantum' instead introduces plot points and discusses complicated-sounding (but actually quite straightforward) things simply, it seems, to confuse the audience.

Olga Kurylenko, in what has become one of her most mentioned roles, is an intriguing ally to 007 and, whilst it would be interesting to see her in future Bond entries, behaving as an even more capable ally to Bond, her involvement here is simply the result of an unnecessary sub-plot involving Bolivian water supplies, an assassination that happened too long ago to care about, and a villain that Bond isn't even really concerned with.

Said villain is played by Mathieu Amalric, who can be summed as being a creepy French sexual deviant. Talk about stereotyping!

And poor Gemma Arterton, whilst thankful for her role in the film, is only seen fleetingly before embarking on one of the worst homages to a previous Bond film seen in any 007 adventure.

Only Judi Dench really gets to sink her teeth into her role, having some incredible scenes alongside Craig and a certain Bill Tanner, now played by Rory Kinnear. Again, she's full of swearing and her trust in 007 is waning (again), but it's so much fun to watch!

In fact, the only weak point of 'M' in this film is that she has been transplanted from Peter Lamont's conservative MI6 HQ into Dennis Gassner's ultramodern typical Bond villain-style lair which, although an interesting twist, is never explained. How could MI6 completely redesign and relocate their London offices from Vauxhall Cross to the Barbican in the space of the few hours that separate this from the previous film?!

I'm not saying that this is a bad film, or even a bad sequel, but it was clear to me, after watching this that, after having led the field back through the Sixties and Seventies, 007 was slipping back into becoming an old man redundant in the modern world and that all the lessons learnt in making 'Casino Royale' had been forgotten. Back to the Pierce Brosnan days of tying together set pieces purely for the sake of doing so, whilst sacrificing interesting pieces of plot!

Still good for an occasional watch, though!
9/10
The dark side of Bond, very nice
nitin-sen27 November 2008
Its pretty bold to stray away from the tradition of more than 20 bond movies that have gone by, but the film-makers do that and they have done it pretty well.

The storyline is strong & very focused, specially from Bond's point of view.. anyone saying that the story goes aimless, its unfair & incorrect.

The movie continues from where Casino Royale ended, and the continuation is very well done. No gadgets, no too many babes, all reflect that Bond is still not out the revenge mode as his girl was killed only few hours back!!

To conclude, its an interesting movie with a brilliant performance from Craig Danial, he's a new breed.... so is this new bond movie.. Like it or Hate it..

I like it.
10/10
A Triumphant Success!
camerondalepulliam25 August 2020
A movie made to punish someone. But who?

Did Daniel Craig break some rule by being the best Bond ever, right out of the gate? It seems as though they put him in a position to play James Bond again but in a frat house skit. "You can do 'Skyfall,' but first you have to play a James Bond who cries, drinks beer, drives a Ford, and is clueless about women." Harsh, harmful, and humiliating is how I would describe the film's treatment of James Bond AND Daniel Craig.

Or were they punishing the director? Someone who had never seen a James Bond film or read an Ian Fleming novel, provided with only two out of every five pages of script, and given five weeks to go from the table read to final edit would turn out a product like this. It could be a career killer.

What about us, the faithful audience, who for decades have sat through all the smarmy dialogue, every robust smack on the bottom, every double entendre pulled from an old library book from the Friar's Club? Do we deserve to be bilked and bored and bewildered by this film? Maybe so. We've tolerated the intolerable, accepted the unacceptable, and watched the unwatchable on too many screens for too many years. Hence, karma punches us in the solar plexus with this feather duster.

Somebody had it out for somebody else, and whoever they were trying to torture got tortured by this godawful film-the triumphant success of a failure.
6/10
Got an headache after 15 mins into the movie
Monarch_117 November 2021
I know this movie came at a time when shaky camera effects and rapid cuts in action scenes were ubiquitous. But God, the action scenes in the beginning had too much going on and there was a cut for every second. I had to take a break and continue the movie later. The plot was fine for a Bond movie. The villain is not charismatic thus making bond look weaker. As usual, Daniel Craig was excellent as bond and Judi Dench provides much needed emotional aspect of the film. Special mention should be made for the excellent soundtrack and background score. Overall it was an okay Bond film, neither bad nor great. 6/10.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum Of Solace- A Let Down Of A Bond Movie
FreddieLee0426 December 2018
Apart from the 1st 25 minutes, this film was an utter borefest. Daniel Craig is the only thing that keeps this a somewhat ok bond movie. Both the villain and the plot are seriously underdeveloped and are very strange for a bond film after such a fantastic 1st appearance for Craig in 'Casino Royale'. Without a doubt the weakest of Daniel Craig's bond movies.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Marc Forster please go back to directing drama!
rhmovie15 November 2008
Daniel Craig is still one of my favorite Bonds. This is where the good ends. On a more sour note, Marc Forester has stripped everything from the movie that made it a Bond film, and turned it into some generic piece of action crap. Furthermore, any of the fight scenes or sweet car chases that may have added good action to the film where destroyed by Forester's horrible editing direction; I could not tell what the hell was going on! I have a possible theory for this. Perhaps, being that it was his action debut, Forster turned to the guidance of the recently celebrated Bourne trilogy. The last two films of the trilogy, supremacy and ultimatum, are directed by Paul Greengrass. These two films are noted for their very rough and fast cut action sequences, and in fact, won several awards for their sound and editing, including three Oscars. Maybe Forester though he would be trendy and try his hand at this style. The difference here of course, is that Greengrass is brilliant at this and Forster totally sucks at it. Marc Forster, please don't sully the good thing that Casino Royale began with any more of your bad directing. Give us back Martin Cambell.
9/10
GREAT FOLLOW UP TO CASINO ROYALE
whitesixomar23 April 2022
I strongly recommend checking the user "lnvicta" review of this movie as I read a lot of user reviews and that one I liked the most.

To me, Casino Royale is the best 007 movie and Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. So naturally, I loved Quantum of Solace as it is a direct follow-up of the events in Casino Royale. The focus of this movie is Bond itself, how he comes to terms with Vesper's betrayal and her death. You can see how he is fueled by rage and this is portrayed in the impressive acting of Mr. Craig.

I remember watching this at movie theaters in 2008. Back then, I felt the movie was amazing with tons of action sequences but somewhat slow-paced and with too many shaky-cam techniques that cut every half second, so you can't tell what's going on. I think the plot and overall movie are great, the acting and the execution were great, but the problem lies within the direction and editing.

I'm watching the entire 007 libraries as I can now in 2022, and revisiting Quantum Of Solace was great! Somehow I felt the pacing is not that slow, the Camile character arc was completely revolutionary for a Bond movie, I could appreciate a lot of things that didn't catch my eye back then.

This is my second 007 favorite Movie after Casino Royale :)
10/10
Absolutely Brilliant
nickandert13 November 2008
Coming into this I was expecting a solid film, coming from Marc Forster with the franchise coming off of Casino Royale. I didn't expect it to be nearly this good. First of all, the direction is brilliant. Without saying too much, the Opera scene and a few other key moments are so well edited and directed that I was breathless, and not just from the action. The film delivers on these moments more than any other Bond film has. One comment I just read mentioned it not having substance - okay, yes, it's a Bond film. I think you have to grant that it's the most intelligently-written Bond film yet (not surprising, considering who wrote it - the Casino Royale team including Haggis), and there is not one wince-causing line in the script; also, the characters almost never, with maybe one or two exceptions, fall into the horrible Bond clichés. It develops characters realistically in the vein of Casino Royale. The plot itself, smart but not world-changing, isn't really the payoff. James Bond is. When the film ended, I was as satisfied as when I had walked out of some of my favorite films. Before walking into the midnight showing, In Bruges was my favorite film of 2008. I never expected this had even a remote chance of coming close, but it may have just trumped it. Doubtless, opinions will differ, but from a little-too-zealous film student, there's my two cents. See it.
9/10
Whats wrong with the latest Bond Film
allenjc220124 November 2008
I've just watched the latest Bond film and apart from the main character being called James Bond and M being in the film it just wasn't a Bond film.

Wheres was Q, the gadgets, the funny one liners and the Bond stories we all love.

They have seriously lost there direction and have turned Bond into more of a Bourne Identity film.

The story line was so thin, no one in the cinema could keep up with it, Bond is a timeless character that will always bring in a massive crowd but with the last two films it's all been lost. The films don't stand out anymore as being a bond classic, they are just molding it into all other one of action films.

I think they need to watch all the old Bond films and find themselves again, only then do I think they will create another timeless Bond film.

Fingers crossed they get it right next time!!!!
7/10
"What's the expression? Damaged Goods?" (snicker)
darkness31718 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A couple of years ago when I saw Casino Royale, I thought it was the best Bond movie ever. It had this tough, brooding beefcake guy whoopin ass, betting $10,000,000 like he's got nothing to lose, getting the hot chicks and spouting off the best things to say when you're being tortured. This man was Danel Craig as THE James Bond. He didn't give a damn if his martini was shaken or stirred and used his other OO7 signature line in the most hella cool way. And so I waited for two years to find out what happened next.

I heard a lot of bad things about QoS but, regardless, I was more excited going into the theater than I care to admit. Two years of waiting consummated, finally! I was put off by lack of a gun barrel again but I was rockin' out to the opening chase; I have ADD so the quick cuts were right up my alley. I greatly enjoyed the rest of the action scenes, save for the boat chase which was lame and just dragged the bit in Haiti too long. The part where they jump out of the plane and the finale gave me goosebumps.

I've heard complaints about the style but I think the style represents Bond's anguish. He's hurt and trying not to show weakness, I know I do that by being tough. James has no problem hurting people to hide the shame of being weakened by Vesper's betrayal. At the end he learns the truth about what happened to Vesper and her boyfriend. He's finally able to forgive her and shows he's the bigger man and lets the boyfriend live, even though he was every reason to cap him.

The reason i refer to it as damaged goods is simply that it has some problems as well. For my money it's far too short. The plot, though if you think about makes sense, is thin. In it's defense, when Bond left Greene out in the desert, he in a sense made him drink oil, the same thing Greene did to Fields, for whom Bond obviously had tender feelings toward. Also I'm of the opinion M got a little too much screen time in James' movie. This is OO7's Quantum of Solace, not M's bitching James out. And how does James keep getting out of trouble when he kills so many people he's not supposed to? In short, a solid action flick, provides closure for the emotional upheaval in Casino Royale (if you think about it), though full of logic gaps and not enough of Dan.
7/10
Over complicated and yet too simple?
barbecue-25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I enjoyed Casino Royale and thought that QOS would be a similar if a little more 'Bondish' effort (ie more gadgets!). I wasn't disappointed that there weren't gadgets and cars but I was disappointed by the film being a bit of a shambles. The story manged to be so complicated that you were left thinking "What the hell was that about?". But then you realise that the plot was incredibly, tediously simple. Boring in fact! I hope the next film is a proper bond film based on a proper book as this is the strength of Bond I feel. We need some proper baddies, no some weak conspiracy rubbish that has been in so many other films. Come on people! Take some risks and get something interesting on the screen!
1/10
BOND fails this time
arunonline477 November 2008
Quantum of Solace which is a follow up of Casino Royale is not as gud as one would expect actually speaking it was a decent action film but it lacked what a bond movie was like the camera was awful and the editing at some places were not that gud casino royale was a gud bond movie with some cool plot involved but QoS hmmmmm i doubt if bond has failed for the first time Is the story far-fetched? Yeah, a little! Ludicrous? You bet. Entertaining? Sure. Who watches these films for their intelligence? If so, you're going to be disappointed. Read Ian Fleming's Bond novels instead and you'll be happier.

If you want brainless fun then this is a good Bond movie
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Probably like most other James Bond films.
errollgarnier3 April 2010
I feel at considerable disadvantage in reviewing this film because I haven't seen it. Nonetheless, I will endeavour to produce some guidance which I hope will be useful to other people who are considering watching it.

I proceed on the basis that James Bond films are a) expensive; and b) formulaic. I also take into account that a lot of other people have gone to see it, so I presume that it is at least good in parts.

Even if the film is lacking in ingenuity, the vast mountains of dosh spent on it are likely to guarantee at least some pretty cool special effects. There are also likely to be some examples of the female form which would not be considered at the less attractive end of the scale.

Overall, I reckon that you may or may not enjoy this film, depending on your own tastes and experience. I hope this review has been useful.
8/10
Very entertaining, but nothing more
Rony00715 October 2008
I can't say it is worst or better than DK - it's just completely different movie with completely different point. If we talked about Casino Royale, then I can compare it with DK, because CR reanimated "bond movie" genre with total new view on well-known things. And DK did it with "comic series" genre too. DK and CR have deeper analysis of main characters - Batman is not only somebody in black costume and Bond is not just bulletproof body. It is about their villains too - Joker and Le Chiffre - they are not only psychos with plans to enslave or destroy the world. Quantum of Solace has a lot of action, but nothing more - I wanted to see there story about revenge - is it worth or not worth to do it and does you heart will find peace after revenge. It's not bad movie - it is very entertaining, but nothing more. Unfortunately...
29 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, intense thrill ride, but not Bond
punyerd15 February 2022
Quantum Of Solace is a pretty good action flick. It's very riveting, action-packed and gritty, but nothing about it screams Bond to me. It can therefore seem soulless and disappointing sometimes, but it's good if you want a short, albeit generic thrill ride.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well done - better than expected
hippothirteen9 November 2008
A film supposedly no good, for me, turned out to be an enjoyable Sunday afternoon's watch. Previous spy films have relied too much on duff technology which looks rubbish as years go by (anyone remember the C60 cassette tape in Diamonds are Forever?). So by making the film stunts and action based we have a film that will look good for years to come - links well with Casino Royale (and is in effect part 2), but is none the worse for that. Craig is believable as the tough guy and handles the fights well. The plot does jump around, but if you keep up with it, it does reward as all the loose bits tie up.

A good film, not a great film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent Character (Bond) Development :) !!! / So-So Movie :(
scottlshuster16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by saying that this is my first review, and I must have read 50 or more before feeling compelled to add my 2 cents. All the other reviews are spot on, and all capture what is missing from this movie as opposed to Casino Royale - namely an interesting plot that doesn't rely on action sequence to action sequence. But before I get into the movie let's talk about about Bond. And it is here, that I feel I can add something that none of the other reviews have brought up.

No one has mentioned, that this Bond (Daniel Craig) has only had 007 status for maybe a year. He receives 007 status in CR. This movie, QoS, takes place immediately where CR leaves off. This Bond is becoming, "Bond, James Bond". This is like "Batman, The Beginning". We are seeing how Bond turns into the character we all know so well from the pre-Daniel Craig movies. I wish the movie itself would remind the audience of this fact, too. All it would take is a simple line from M that, "you don't know everything... you've only had 007 status X number of months."

So that being said, all the complaints about, Daniel Craig being rough around the edges and not having the suaveness, the classic lines, and the humor of Connery, Moore, or Brosnin are relevant - and are also timely for this Bond. He is not supposed to at this point in his character development. Which brings us to the title, "Quantum of Solace," which reflects Bond gaining a quantum of solace in his character from this adventure.

I am a huge fan - seen every movie and have read almost all of Ian Flemming. This Bond, Daniel Craig, is truly the Bond from the books. He is ice-cold, highly skilled, independent, and inexplicably loyal. As stated above, in this movie he gains a quantum of solace. Yet not too much, and notice that in this movie (the first time ever out of any Bond movies - yet not the books) he kills the villain with premeditation and not out of self-defense. Here Bond easily captures Greene, and instead of bringing him in to Mi6, he sadistically goes out of his way to revenge Fields and leave Greene to die in a desert with only a can of oil to drink and bad guys hunting him down . I Love It! / Awesome! This Bond is the heartless, vengeful, killer he is in the books. And Daniel Craig, with his ice-cold blue eyes, has this mastered. But what about his sexual/romantic side that is the other 50% of James Bond.

Well after Vesper, he has shut down any possible romantic emotional feeling. He won't let himself be hurt again. And that is why the Fields character is so important to Bond's character development. He never takes her seriously, and because she is just an "underling" he can easily dismiss her and any emotions for her (which there are very little). Yet she is the only girl he has sex with in the movie. He does not have sex with Olga Kurylenko (the female lead). Yet it is Kurylenko that he has so much in common with (revenge, both are agents), and spends so much time with and saving and rescuing. We see him break down in one scene and give her a Sean Connery hard kiss - and that's it. He won't open up to her and let himself be hurt again. This is key to his character development. We need to see Bond use Fields as an object and not open up to a true equal like Kurylenko.

Daniel Craig is awesome as the Ian Flemming Bond and I can't wait to see him grow into the Bond I grew up with. I do miss Q, and the gadgets, and the witticisms, but I am patient and look forward to this development over the years. I just hope the writers actually have this in their plan.

As to the movie itself, read all the other reviews. They are right on. Too much hand held camera action (blame the crew hired from the Bourne movies to work on this one), so-so villain, simple or confusing plot (I still can't make sense of it). Also a "Bond treat" would have been nice. Throw in a "shakin - not stirred" please!

p.s. The Opera Scene is one of the best action scenes from any Bond movie. The scene is also accurate on how bad guys have meetings. They really do it at public places with high tech gear as opposed to a conference room in an office building or remote island or fortress. ALSO, the action is relatively quick, uncomplicated, ruthless (innocent people are killed), and made even more gruesome as there is no sound other than the music from the opera Tosca.
8/10
Good Bond entry, and a viable plot continuing film.
phileeguy916 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace (QOS from here on out) was a good film in my opinion, but not quite as good as its prior entry in the Bond film franchise.

QOS picks up the plot pretty seamlessly from the end of Casino Royale (CR from now on), as Bond fights his way to find who is involved in the criminal organization known as the "Quantum," what they plan on doing and why they would have his love, Vesper Lynd, want to let herself die to spare Bonds' life.

However, that seem begins to fray after the first few action scenes and about 15 minutes into the film as you are thrust into new locales with many new faces, each having their own agendas. This leaves you having to decipher who is important to the story, what are their back-stories, and who are minor players. Usually a film will allow you the time to take the information in, but QOS likes to jump to action scenes more often than CR did, making the plot comprehension a little more difficult, I thought.

Still, by about halfway through the movie you should have a good grasp on who's who, and what's generally going on, which allows you to not needlessly dwell on subject matter, and enjoy the action scenes. At the end I knew the plot could've been advanced further as we know that this story will continue in another Bond sequel, but I also felt satisfied where they left it. Also remember that QOS was only 106 minutes, compared to CR at 144 minutes.

The amount and length of the action scenes in QOS varies a good deal from the action in CR. It felt that - and I would wager - the scenes were somewhat shorter in QOS, but there were many more of them, many being more elaborate and expansive. Whether it be general hand-to-hand combat, chase scenes, or your grand explosion scenes. Also, if you had to distinguish the two in this manner, CR was more the scalpel of the spy action flicks, whereas QOS was the machete.

At the end I give QOS an 8/10, but only because there was no 7.5 rating available to me, and since I enjoy Bond films I rounded up. I have to say I'm liking this turn the Bond franchise has taken. As much as I delighted in James' quips and comebacks, Q and his gadgetry, and the uber-villains and their henchmen of previous Bond films, I won't miss them as long as those involved keep the bar set high for these new films. Hopefully Daniel Craig can do what the other Bonds couldn't accomplish: have his entries continue to get progressively better.
6/10
What happened?
chr_botor7 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What happened? Is it sophomore jinx? They had the perfect Bond. The story telling went on a nose dive. People are no longer talking in the movie. Was vengeance the only plot there, looking for Vesper's killers, running, chasing? What about problem solving, spy work, good intelligence gathering? It was two-hours of heart pounding boom bass explosion was what I got from the film.

Bond may have been re-branded as 40%-spy 60%-assassin. Great art work is not just about noise, it also makes the mind work, solving mysteries, keeping the audience at the edge of their seat as they think. The movie may have been loud because of the explosions and aerial shots but it made me yawn.

I hope the next installment will be better and be at the same level as Casino Royale.
9/10
A Breath of Fresh Air For Me
sidekicknick4321 October 2010
I must say, I wasn't even planning on seeing this in the theaters, but a few friends of mine talked me into it and, hey, it's a James Bond film. I'm pretty much guaranteed to like some parts if not the whole movie. That being said, I didn't like Casino Royale. I thought it was incredibly boring after Eva Green showed up. Not blaming her, its just at that moment that the film dipped low.

I will start out by saying that I liked this movie much more than Royale. It had everything I could ever want out of a Bond film. Great casting, acting, action sequences, hot women, and a good overall story. This is the first actual Bond sequel and 007 wants to get revenge for the death of his girlfriend. This, to me, surpasses Royale in every way. The chemistry between the characters was also very good. The dialog was witty and often humorous and it felt like the movie went by very fast. Didn't feel like 2 hours.

The only gripes I have for this film are very minor. Didn't care for either of the bond girls. Both of them felt kind of forced. I've heard people mention the camera work in the action scenes and, for once, I agree. Normally I don't even notice the shaky cam, at least not since I saw Armaggeddon. But, I don't think I'll have any problems with that in the future.
8/10
A Solid Sequel
franchiglen17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me get this out in the open right now. This is the kind of thing that makes me weep for the current status, and maybe the future of mankind. Honestly, some of the reviews on here must have been conducted by mentally incompetent individuals.

Is this one of the best Bond films made, NO! However, in no way, is it deserving of the cynicism and skepticism it has received. First of all, it is a sequel, and following what may have been one of the best Bond films in the series' existence. This, naturally, makes it hard for the film to live up to expectations once the audience enters the theatre.

I heard and read numerous complaints about the "reprehensible" action sequences supposedly "inserted", into the film. These people did not consider the sequences are provided for entertainment, and to set up Bonds character, for the film. The scenes where not merely inserted for grandeur affect, but placed strategically to show the maddening disregard, of Bond, for safety and order, in his pursuits. It was symbolic of his bloodthirsty quench for revenge. Apparently any action sequence is frowned upon now. We have reached a crossroads, where we have degraded action sequences, to a nauseating degree, that we forget action can tell stories. We only remember that we are immersed, in an era, of bad story telling due to a "technology crutch", but sometimes storytelling and action can co-exist in an acceptable realm.

Furthermore, to the dimwitted masses, who think this is an altered Jason Bourne, I suggest you do some research. The late Robert Ludlum was my favorite writer, by far, so I am well inclined, and versed, in Bourne lore to argue this point. However, that argument would last and infinite number of pages. I do want to say that the film does a tremendous job setting up the next film.

Quantum of Solace is the sorbet, if you will, of a steak dinner. Although plain and "supposedly" predictable at times, it soothes my movie pallet with new character and plot developments. The very fact we see Bond in an internal struggle over a previous woman is a leap forward, in the series. They are creating a Bond with emotional layers, and painting him as a human being, and not the unbreakable machine he was in past performances. In addition, the intricacy to weave through the movie stating an end with his emotional battle, and coupled with the beginning pursuit of an elusive organization was gratifying. I think people need to do a better job thinking and analyzing this movie, than just seeing what is provided on the surface.
7/10
The Bond Ultimatum
alexmail-214 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bond Ultimatum. I say that, because it is almost as if the guys at MGM saw the Bourne Ultimatum and Realized that it was a better action movie than any James Bond movie. They tried to take Quantum of Solace in the same Bournesque direction.

The movie starts off around an hour after where Casino Royale left off, and I found the story much easier to follow. The story also made you feel like there was more at stake, and that Bond's actions had a greater affect on the world. Bond is bringing Mr. White (The guy he shoots in leg at the end of Royale), to be interrogated by M, and MI6 cronies. White informs MI6 that his organization has people everywhere.

Daniel Craig is excellent again as Bond, but he doesn't really begin to develop his character until the end. Judi Dench is great as always, and the rest of the cast does a stellar job.

This movie has a lot more classic Bond elements to it than Casino Royale. Inhuman stunts, impossible feats, and of course gadgets. It is very gritty for a Bond movie, and portrays Bond as more of an Assassin than so much as a spy. You will see a dark side to Bond that we've never seen before.

You can tell that Marc Forester has little experience in shooting action movies, because the action sequences are basic copies of the Bourne Ultimatum. There is a car chase that is very similar, and a rooftop chase that is almost a shot for shot exact copy. One of the really great actions scenes isn't done with live action effects, but instead uses CGI, and you feel that Forester is using other Movies and CGI has his crutch. The action might have been more entertaining if you didn't get the whole "seen it before", "Been there done that" sense with the action sequences The action is really entertaining, and nonstop. The longest dialogue sequence is less than five minutes, because there is so much action going on throughout the whole movie.

Quantum of Solace's strong point is that it has a perfect Runtime. Around an Hour and Forty Five Minutes. It's not to long, it almost feels longer, because so much happens throughout the movie.

Quantum of Solace is not as great as Casino Royale character developmentally and emotionally, but it fills those holes with some entertaining action sequences that are good at times, yet sometimes feel a bit familiar, and it's easy to follow story that puts a lot at stake.
8/10
Bond as a Revenge Flick
Uridon27 March 2020
Rough around the edges and fittingly so, this film is unique in the Bond universe as not only a direct sequel but a revenge flick at that.

Barring some weak social commentary and crappy parachute logic, this is one of the better Bond films easily. The action is great and relentless, to the point. The duology of Casino Royale and Quantam is one of the highest points of the entire Bond franchise, and for people whining about the writer's strike, I implore you to get through rewatching Spectre without wanting to drink motor oil.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Quantum of Solace" is a heavily flawed. It is a fast paced and action filled Bond flick that lacks a few defining characteristics of a Bond film
BigBirdtheBum25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now after hearing overwhelmingly negative reviews towards "Quantum of Solace", I entered my local theatre with low expectations, but quite frankly I was pleasantly surprised. Whilst "Quantum of Solace" is quite flawed it is still a rather enjoyable action experience. Now the film picks of literally where "Casino Royale". Bond is transporting the mysterious Mr White to an interrogation with MI6. Unsurprisingly Bond is attacked by henchmen, after disposing of them he takes Mr White to Sienna, Italy. The interrogation is interrupted with a shootout and Bond is sent to Bolivia to try and discover information about a mysterious villainous network- "Quantum". After reaching a few "dead-ends" Bond encounters the films villain Dr Greene, whose diabolical plan is to control the water supply of Bolivia- yep I know, that's probably the worst evil plan any Bond villain has ever had.

OK enough about the plot. The real problem with the film is that it focuses on presenting good action by sacrificing a coherent story, character development and all the Bond essentials. The story itself is really rather poor and structured about as bad as the houses be see in Bolivia. Bond just seems to jump from country to country killing people, finding information and killing more people until the finale. The problem with this is it moves to fast to develop a sense of drama. "Casino Roayle" (the franchises reboot) had this. In "casino Royale" tension developed between Bond and the villain of that film Le Chiffre and between Bond and his Bondgirl Vesper. Quantum lacks this, and leaves us with a rather dull action experience, at least from this angle. Even the characters are poorly developed, when really if the film was maybe 20-30minutes longer, more time could have been dedicated to exploring characters relationships and even past relationships. Perhaps spending some time exploring Bondgirl Camille (Olga Kurylenko) past (this included her family being murdered by General Mendaro, another antagonist of the film). But instead the filmmakers over looked this and hence the film failed to make me care about the character receiving vengeance upon the General, or to present the General as a vile, sadistic man.

Astonishingly enough, I was able to see past these flaws of the film and appreciate what the films had to offer. There were thankfully great, faced paced and energetic action sequences including; a boat chase, plane chase (which brings pack some of the cheese "Casino Royale" abandoned) and car chase, as well as chase through Siena in similar format to that of the one in Madagascar in "Casino Royale". These action scenes were quite well choreographed, but shockingly filmed, with the shaky camera effect proving to be more of a nuisance, than a visual aid. Another striking occurrence in the film is the level of brutality; this is possible the most brutal Bond film. Bond kills people with no remorse and no empathy. This creative decision makes Bond's quest for vengeance far more convincing than if he had been left as he was pre-"Casino Roayle", more sympathetic and cruel. Now this upset most bond fans but, I myself was never a hardcore fan of Bond so understand that while reading the review.

Now I suppose ill spend some words addressing Craig's portrayal of Bond. Frankly I was "quite pleased with his performance" (as the queen said to Craig after viewing "Casino Royale". Craig portrays a charismatic Bond not on level with the Charisma of Brosnan nor Connery, but still he has some. This entices audiences to attempt to understand this far more complex portrayal, and multi-level of Bond. Craig never feels uncertain in a scene, regardless of the circumstances. He acts fine in the slower more drama orientated scenes and just as well when he is about to be burnt alive in the middle of the Bolivian Dessert. Whilst as I said not as well as Sean Connery; he still is an impressive actor for Bond (my personal second favourite).

One final aspect of the film, which has let forth bursts of outrage from fans, is the lack of gadgets, Q or Moneypenny. Perhaps not the worse flaw of the film it is amplified by the legions of Bond fans. The film contains no gadgets of any sort which sucks some enjoyment out of what should be a cheesy but fun action flick. Hence I look forward with anticipation that the next films will have some, if not simple gadgets. From what I understand the filmmakers tried to do to Bond, what "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" did for superhero movies? But they fail to realise the importance of the gadgets. Removing the gadgets from a Bond film is like removing a superhero costume from a superhero- you just don't do it. If you do do it, then expect severe negative reviews.

Overall "Quantum of Solace" is a heavily flawed, but a fast paced and action filled Bond flick that lacks a few defining characteristics of a Bond film. Overall "Quantum of Solace" receives a 6.5/10. Not the best Bond film, but certainly not the worst.
7/10
A missed opportunity.
hunter47-126 November 2008
OK, first of all, it was not awful.

I think it's unavoidable that people will be going to see this movie ready to be blown away as they were after seeing Casino Royale. Unfortunately, if you do, you will be disappointed.

Saying that, it is a good film. While trying to avoid spoilers for anyone about to go and see it, it contains an enjoyable car chase, some good foot chase sequences and gun fights, and some enjoyable smart comments that have come to define Bond. It's good to see that even after the loss of Vesper, Bond still retains the over-confidence that he shows in Casino Royale.

Bond has become a much colder individual than in Casino Royale, as acted magnificently by Daniel Craig. In fact, at some points during this film, the phenomenal acting by its cast is the only thing keeping the movie above water. A slightly clichéd script, an average music score, and a (quite frankly) crap opening song do pull it down occasionally, but it is by no means a bad film.

In conclusion, it's an above average film. Certainly enjoyable by anyone who loved Casino Royale, just don't watch it expecting a film as good as Casino Royale. I saw it expecting to see Casino Royale II, i was disappointed. But i watched it again, with an open mind, and quite enjoyed it (as long as you can stay awake through Alicia Keys abysmal song).
5/10
Good but not great
anthony-burton15 November 2008
I've got to say, i rather like Daniel Craig as Bond, with his dry wit, strong resolve and he certainly looks good on screen. The last two films have gotten back to basics and tried to build on his character, explaining exactly why Bond behaves the way he does, and full credit must go to Craig for delivering impressive performances in both.

There's much to like about Solice, sadly, there's plenty to dislike as well. Parallels drawn to the Bourne series are inaccurate and more to the point a little insulting to the Bourne films. The hand held camera work in Bourne provides a gritty realistic edge. But in Solice, all of the action scenes are not only hand held, but less than a second per cut. I'm all for judicious use of quick cuts to get the heart racing, but when you're forced to sit through 10 minutes of it, you get disorientated and are left wondering what the hell happened.

I'd have given both the director and editor a hefty dose of Temazepam to chill them out, or (preferably) the sack. Same goes for the theme tune, which let's face it is terrible.

There are too many locations and the links joining them are weak. Often, time seems to be the only force driving the film to its conclusion as the script gets a little lost from time to time.

However, Craig, Dench and Giannini all turn in good performances. Some of the scenery is spectacular, i enjoyed the expansion of Bond's character and given the franchise, i found the ending surprisingly poignant.

6/10, not the worst Bond film by a long shot but fails to keep up the standard set by the impressive Casine Royale.
8/10
Dark and full of intrigue.
kirkintha2623 November 2008
I can see how many Bond fans want to see the same formulaic Bond (for the last half century almost), but personally I was done with it all a long time ago, until Daniel Craig became Bond, and they re-vamped the franchise.

I'm glad they took out the fluff. The whole 10 min intro to seeing M and Moneypenny for 10 minutes to seeing Q for 10 minutes, add 15 minutes of sex scenes, and 15 minutes of bad guys, 20 minutes of action and then 30 minutes of actual plot and you have the formula.

This does it more subtly and IMHO more deftly. I enjoyed the cinematography immensely, some of the action shots are just spectacular.

This is what I think people are missing.

The Gadgets: I do miss Q, but did you see all the cool gadgets? They are every where. From cell phones to touch plasma screens, these gadgets are now a reality. I'm glad they don't have gadgets just to push the plot along. In our world of high technology, the only place to go is to sci-fi gadgetry and I hope they never do that.

No quips: Good. I was tired of quipping after "Live or let die" came out.

No Moneypenny. Hey, how do we know that they don't have something in store for us with that? Remember this is a reboot.

A colder Bond - GOOD! I was tired of Bond being the pompously classy booze hound who screws every woman he comes into contact with. Movies have made fun of the "Bond saves the day" routine, hello Austin Powers. I think they have taken away the black and white cold war propaganda and moved it into the grayer realm of globalization.

Re: the directing and plot. My only problem is this really did feel like a sequel, and that it could not a stand on its own. Without the context of Casino Royale, this movie tends to be like other modern action flicks. However, with "Casino" to complement it, these are two really great movies to rebuild the character of James Bond into a 3 dimensional character, who can actually grow from more of "a blunt instrument" to the refined and experienced Bond we all know.

I definitely recommend this film, 8 out of 10 due to the fact that it was chopped up a little too much, and didn't quite give you enough characterization and answers to be satisfying. Other than that, it was really cool to watch! Can't wait for another one.

Oh, And lastly...

Thank god there was not an "Oh, James" in this movie. You can take that phrase and bury it in peat.
Letter not spirit
prodosh_bhattacharya6 November 2008
The movie has just been released in Kolkata, India today. I will update my comments after I see it. I just want to put on record a fact which seems to have been overlooked by all the comments I have read so far. The last time before CASINO ROYALE a Bond movie used a Fleming title and also elements from the story which had that title was in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. However, already before that the habit of taking the title and Bond and nothing else from Fleming's story was seen in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. (Not having read all the Bond stories, I can't say whether the same applies to MOONRAKER. OCTOPUSSY, I think, just about takes the octopus in the aquarium from Fleming, and nothing else. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY cannibalizes elements from the short story 'From a View to a Kill' and the novel LIVE AND LET DIE.)In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, we are back to the THE SPY WHO LOVED ME mode - Fleming's title and absolutely nothing more from that very Somerset Maughamish short story (which I rather liked when I read it, and which of course would be unfilmable as a Bond movie). What would be the title of the next Bond movie? THE HILDEBRAND RARITY? They might choose to retain the murder of a man by shoving a fish down his throat from the story! See everyone again once I have caught the movie. By the way, another bit of interesting Bond movie trivia for all fans from outside India. Till ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, every Bond movie had an 'A' certificate (i.e. below 18 not admitted). Suddenly George Lazenby was graced with a 'U', and the same followed for Connery in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and Moore's first Bond outing LIVE AND LET DIE. Back to 'A' after that for all Moore Bonds till OCTOPUSSY, for which, of course the producers wanted a larger audience as it is partly set in India. So 'U/A', a newly invented censor certificate, suggesting not just parental guidance but actual adult accompaniment in the movie hall. Not to be outdone, Connery secured the same certificate for his NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.Back to 'A's for Brosnan (someone correct me if I'm wrong; did GOLDENEYE get a 'U' or a 'U/A'?)till Craig was once again blessed with a 'U/A' for CASINO ROYALE. I still don't know how they have certified QUANTUM. Cheers! OK, caught the film yesterday, 11th October 2008. The following points struck me: 1. I agree with the user that in some of the action scenes you can't make out who's hitting whom at some points, and you don't know whom to cheer. Particularly true of the early sequence where Bond chases the man who tried to shoot M. Is this deliberate on the part of today's filmmakers? 2. Refreshing that Bond doesn't hop into bed with Camille. Given his state of mind, I would have found it more acceptable if he hadn't had it off with Strawberry Fields as well. After all, in CASINO ROYALE, the only fling he had was prior to l'affaire Vesper. 3. I take it, every Bond movie aficionado noted the deliberate throwback to GOLDFINGER in the way Strawberry Fields' dead body is shown.\? 4. Chronologywise, both ROYALE and QUANTUM are pre-DOCTOR NO, right? So, I would like to join all who are wanting Q back in due course. The technology we saw in QUANTUM is impressive but faceless, and a very poor substitute for John Cleese. 4. On the whole, left less of an impression than ROYALE. But that may be because I have got used to the new bond.
10/10
Stunning action and characterization
serialspice27 December 2008
This movie took me for an unexpected ride. I was absolutely stunned to see some new and very innovative cinema. A lot of the action sequences are actually fist/gun fights, cut almost in "cloverfield" style, taking you right into the action in a very captivating way. Then on top of this most action sequences are cut alternately with another scene creating a stunning orchestration or ballet-like feeling I have only seen previously in very good movies (directors like Martin Scorsese comes into mind).

The plot is difficult and keeps you guessing. Or rather, you meet different characters and you are not sure how their connection are to the main plot. The main plot itself is easy to follow. Again a very interesting feature that put you right in the shoes of of James Bond, who will, in a chase, not know exactly what is going on. He will be acting on a hunch.

Overall, like in Canino Royale, very interesting characterization.

As a side note we also actually get to see how Bond is introduced to the semi dry martini with lemon peel :-)

I had Casino Royale as the best Bond movie so far. This might be the best - I am certainly going to watch it more times after I buy the collectors edition DVD.
7/10
Bond In A Huff
AshCaton27 March 2009
What's bad about this film: there's a fair bit of crazy camera work - OK, a little madness is fun, but too much and we haven't a cat in hell's chance of knowing what's going on. More product placement. Gemma Alderton. And Bond is in a mood. What's good about this film: everything else. I mean that. Some of the best action sequences you'll ever see in Bond; the post-credits chase, the boat chase, the opera house. It's clever, sophisticated, without getting too much bogged down in technical details. Craig is a relentless force, intense. He can switch from quietly charming to bulldog fury in the blink of an eye and doesn't pull any punches. Matthieu Amalric is wonderfully slimy as Dominic Greene, and his end is understated but ultimately very satisfying. This is certainly as stylish as Bond has ever looked, from the slick editing to opening credits. (OK, not the best song, but the animation is fantastic.) My only other jibe at this movie is that when the opening credits to appear, they have a faltering, unsure and delayed start, prompted by an inconsequential line. When there is such a defining gunshot only five minutes after the credits, it makes you wonder why they didn't just do it then. Anyway. All in all, a cracking addition to the franchise, Bond is definitely here again. Hopefully he will have a little more fun next time.
4/10
Immense Disappointment! Wanting to get my Feelings Out on This BOND Movie, for many years . . .
Dudesjunk15 November 2008
Wanting to get my Feelings Out on This BOND Movie . . . Immense Disappointment! I guess that since I am determined to cast my Vote World Wide on this particular cinema movie, then I must vote at least 2 stars for Daniel and 2 stars for Judi for their always good performances and I say sorry to them that the overall picture influenced my feelings from many years of James Bond movies of intelligence, foresighted action, believable stunts and fantastic Big Boy Toy Thrills and always anticipated enticing sexually romantic heart throbbing teases. And . . . I would have even voted 1/2 star for the interim action of too-many scenes of Jerky action and choppy commotions that were mostly unbelievable and just a shocking use of non-intent and meaningless mixed up ploys with over emphasized digital cinematography. Nothing else in this show is deserving of even a ¼ vote; for this non-Bond theme of twaddle that quickly brought me to several sighs of loathing followed by boredom and a great feeling of disappointment. We left without even seeing a single credit (never done that before) and we exited the cinema walking slowly through the cold brisk air while shamefully passing other like minded people, realizing that by some means this great legacy of James Bond cinema movies has now come to a dull-toyed, intelligence-insulting blurred meaningless stunts with senseless unromantic script to a clear and relentless COLD death . . . verysad . . . Dude.S.Junk USA
9/10
Quick Review Of Quantum Of Solace
movie-fan200718 November 2008
After hearing some not so good reviews of the Quantum Of Solace I decided to go anyway to see if for myself. The first thing i have to say its not as bad as everyone says it is. The action bits at the beginning keeps you entertained and it has nothing but action. The only downside to it is sometimes it doesn't feel like a James Bond film. There is hardly no one liners like in the other films. The running time for the film was about right didn't bore me just kept me hooked to the action. Other than that i couldn't complain about it. Overall Quantum Of Solace is worth seeing if you like plenty of action and of course a James Bond fan..
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The 2nd worst Bond film
point2e8 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went into the cinema expecting to see a worthy sequel to Casino Royale and what I saw was a total mess. It was then that I realised action films are not easy to make and the number 1 rule is never get a director who is good at those artistic drama or such movies to direct an all out action movie, because what you have is between a really bad action film and an inadequate artistic film. Everything that is Bond is wiped out in this movie and left with an empty shell that reminds me all too much of a Jason Bourne movie and I hated all 3 Bourne films. The obsession and insistence of filming action sequences close up, jittery hands for camera and indistinguishable hero-villain during a fight is to me the trademarks of a bad director who doesn't know what he is doing. Of course Marc Forster must start somewhere but to start with a Bond film perhaps may be too ambitious. The same reason why The Golden Compass failed is the exact same reason why Quantum Of Solace fails to deliver what should have been an amazing experience expected of any Bond film. Locations after locations, seems more like a show off with no substance. The script is also terrible. Absolutely devoid of any memorable lines, the script is a mix of awful unmemorable lines, confusing lines or lines that absolutely made no sense. Gone are the witty exchange. Even the drama or heartfelt moments in this movie is spoiled by a less than sincere effort of a script. Maybe the scriptwriter had no time to vet through it, since the writers' strike was nearing the deadline so that script had to do. But what a terribly confusing script. If you felt Mission Impossible the movie was impossible to decipher, Quantum Of Solace has a premise as difficult to explain as its title. In the end I still don't know what, who, where, why is Quantum. Characters from Casino Royale, such as Mathis were introduced again just to die a senseless death and when I say senseless, I meant I can't understand what happened. Was Mathis a double spy? I still don't get it. Then Felix Leiter, the CIA agent became rather shadowy or rather an implication that CIA is shadowy. And then? Nothing. A character gets introduced, a plot gets introduced and then suddenly the tone shifted and the plot nor the character never get a satisfactory end explanation.

Casino Royale had the alluring Eva Green as Vesper and only in this movie did I realise how alluring she was and she was only said in name and seen in pictures. Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields is rather pointless, introduced merely to have sex with Bond and die a terrible death. Whilst the gold covered corpse in Goldfinger was iconic and relevant to the plot, Agent Field's death by oil is simply a waste of film. There is no relevance (she should have drowned or died of over consumption of water because the water is the main point in this movie) and the way her body was filmed was like as if the director did not know whether to focus or not focus. It was neither shocking nor memorable. In the end it was just another dead character and her character is as pointless as Teri Hatcher's character in I believe Tomorrow Never Dies. Gemma Arterton did not have enough to make an impact and I thought the way her character was introduced was rather weird.

Olga Kurylenko plays Camille and I thought she looked over tanned. Poor girl,hardly any budget to look as glamorous as any Bond girl should, not even at a fancy party. Her performance consisted of pouting and looking dead serious. She wasn't even alluring but looked over baked. Her acting was inadequate and amateurish. Her character irrelevant and I can't see the connection, except for tremendous loss of a loved one, which is in the end rather forced.

In the end this movie failed because everything Bond is stripped and what we are left with is a crazy killing machine. Daniel Craig was good as ever but too slim to look believable as a killing machine and too serious that somehow I wonder where had the witty sarcasm gone. The villain was the worst. Mathieu Amalric looked like a really poor version of a villain, given neither credible storyline nor a memorable line to be considered a good Bond villain. He simply fell flat looking like a rat rather than a powerful sinister whatever he was. He wasn't even scary and what his role do exactly is as confusing as the entire film. He is probably a very good actor but in this movie, he seems like a fish out of water. Even the main story point about water was lost in the confusing plots, subplots, double plots and no plots. The theme song was as awful as any other and the opening sequence seems like a throwback to the old Bond films which is embarrassing to watch. I love Casino Royale and this movie made me love Casino Royale and the past Bond films more. The producer should have demanded more instead of giving us this half baked, badly acted, badly scripted and worse badly directed mess. Get a director who know action films, perfect the script and spend more time on casting. I just pity Judi Dench, excellent as she was as M, she seems overran by the awful mindless witless plot. Even for a drama it was terrible. No doubt this one will make tons of money but in the end it does not deserve a place in the long line of excellent Bond films. And it manages to make an under 2 hour film seems more than 2 hours and that is quite an achievement.

(Worst Bond film = Die Another Day)
4/10
A Quantum Of Solace? No-no seven!
got_the_feelin7 November 2008
I'm a die hard fan of the Bond series, and have enjoyed most of the films, for varying reasons. In campy times, and in serious ones too! Watching a Bond film for me is about forgetting my worries, kicking back and enjoying what James Bond is going to get up to next.

When I found out that Daniel Craig had been cast as Commander James Bond, I was somewhat skeptical. I had thoroughly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, he had the charm, vulnerability and the look of Bond down to a tee. Unfortunately the producers somehow saw it that in each successive film the stories and action became more and more unbelievable and jokey, peaking with the cringe worthy "Die Another Day". A total waste of a superb actor. So would it be more of the same with Craig? Luckily the producers were preparing a "reinvention" of the series, with a more serious Bond.

After seeing Craig in "Layer Cake" and "The Trench" and seeing what an excellent actor he is I thought that his interpretation of Bond might be fine after all. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. After seeing the film I was very pleased that at last here was a Bond film with a plausible and well told story, and rare for Bond, an emotional one at that. It still had a few of the old Bond ingredients, but it didn't wallow in them. Craig was excellent in his first Bond film, I didn't fully warm to him admittedly, as all the Bond actors have that key factor. On screen and off, they all have charm and personality. I feel that he lacks this somewhat, but none the less this is a great Bond film. A classic that we've not had in a long time.

It's now 2 years on and we get to finally see the out come of the events of "Casino Royale" in "Quantum Of Solace". Well unfortunately the wait isn't worth it. After seeing the film I came away with the same disappointment as I did with "Die Another Day". I didn't want to believe the negative reviews before I went into the film, but alas after reading them they have a serious point to make. Overall the film feels rushed, claustrophobic and unresolved. I'm afraid it's just not enjoyable enough or engaging enough to persuade me that A) I should care about what happens to Bond, or B) that I can just kick back and enjoy the film! To claim that this is the resolution to the story that we followed in "Casino Royale" is undoubtedly a very big disappointment.

So where did it all go wrong? Well the film has more bad points than I can mention here but the editing, and to my girlfriends' trained ears, the sound, are poorly executed. I can see what they are trying to convey, that if you where in those situations, action would move so quickly that you wouldn't be able to catch your breath. But to fill much of the film with one action scene after another, with this style of editing, is beyond anyone's comprehension. In "Casino Royale" the action played a supporting role to the story. Bond's involvement with Vesper becomes emotional, and you believe that Bond has been hurt, is confused and has been thoroughly tested to his limits. But here the action is the main part of the film, and the storyline plays second fiddle. The action is at times so unbelievable that we can't relate to Bond as being fallible. For the franchise to continue in a serious vein it will surely have to convince us that he is in the next film, otherwise its back to fantasy land! "Moonraker" anyone?

I wanted to find out why Vesper sacrificed her life for Bond, and who the organisation her ex boyfriend has been working for, and that they needed to be dealt with by Bond. But after an hour of this film I really didn't care, and for the first time watching a Bond film I became bored, restless and began to squirm in my seat! I'd not even reacted like that to "Die Another Day", at least that was funny bad, like "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill". And at least those films have a likable leading actor in the form of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan and could be enjoyed as entertainment. Craig is not likable here as he goes from one killing to another, without pause to reflect on his actions. I'm afraid it might as well have been Matt Damon, or Jean Claude Van Dame up on the screen, as I did not believe this was Bond.

You may be surprised that i've given this film a rating as high as 4/10! I'm sure i'm going to get blasted by every Bond fan out there too. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond, and this film does have it's moments. It has a fairly entertaining car chase, a couple of witty lines thrown in, stylish art direction, a few nods to the previous Bond films (I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at the alias on Bond's business card) and in my opinion a good theme song. However, I could see the cracks a mile off, it just wasn't well thought out from beginning to the end.

Every Bond film until this one has had at least had a few of the ingredients that make up a "Bond" film. Each film doesn't have to have every single Bond cliché, but I just didn't feel that this had any of them to warrant the 007 suffix. Craig is a good actor, so please make us feel that you have earned the right to say "Bond, James Bond" next time around, give us an enjoyable thriller and a Bond we all can relate to.
8/10
Good, Honest Modern Bond movie
Goathands16 November 2008
After reading several reviews and hearing Roger Moore's comments. I was apprehensive about seeing this film.

But, nothing to fear here. This Bond film is Excellent! The action sequences are great! Some have commented on the aggressive editing, but it is used sparingly and doesn't distract from that which makes bond a Tour de Force.

I thought the plot was very smart and contemporary. The story dealt with real issues of environmental resources and a plausible scenarios. The plot was clean and efficient, with clear motives of character and little relying on obvious error or gaffs. Very refreshing after just watching Moonraker (1979), which makes me wonder why one would ever blow up a perfectly good Space station.

QoS makes several reference to Casino Royal, which I kinda lost me, since the only thing I can remember from CR is the egregiously long poker tournament that made me think I was watching ESPN2. Guess I have to watch it again to see what I was missing.

Honesty, Quantum of Solace is worth seeing in the Theaters.
8/10
A completely different shade of Bond
kagx31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is unlike any other Bond movie ever made. We see a dark, vengeful, hate filled bond. The movie seems to be driven by Bond's vengeance rather than anything else.

The story line is rather thin and we don't see the usual narcissistic "I want to rule the world" villain. If you are a classic bond film / book fan, I suspect that this wont wet your appetite. It misses out on the usual cheesy one liners, Gadgets, Gambling at Casinos, his usual drink and even women.

Looking at it in a different way, by completing this mission, his desire for vengeance seems to have subsided thus paving the path to a sophisticated, cold blooded spy who can get the job done at all costs. I can only hope that the future bond movies will be able to capture the essence of classics.

The opening chase sequence is fantastic. The movie is filled with action sequences throughout, the Camera work is brilliant. Daniel Craig fits the profile of a cold blooded killer perfectly. Overall a good action packed movie without the regular "Bond" factor in it.
4/10
Good action film with a character named Bond, but not a Bond film
aridaen20 November 2008
This film like Casino Royale lacks the elements that make it a true 007 Bond film. No Q, no Moneypenny, none of the cool toys that we have came to know and love about the Bond films and no direction or briefing at the beginning as in past films. To me, it was just another action movie just like the others Hollywood is pumping out these days and not a true Bond film. The title sequence was utter torture. Both Jack White and Alicia Keys sounded like they were shrieking in agony and I couldn't make out what they were shrieking about. The only intelligible words were "Another Way To Die". Director Marc Forster has made a first rate action thriller -- in fact, it's one of the year's best. Next time, however, we'd like to be reminded that the hero of the movie is called Bond...James Bond. I think overall, the Producers have forgotten what makes Bond unique. Bond is supposed to be fun, over the top escapism. Not gritty and real. We want to be Bond, not have Bond be us. Solace is one relentlessly dour, emotionless movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond sensitive?
fardarter30 December 2008
I always enjoy a good Bond movie and this one was no exception. Craig is a fine James Bond and we shall all miss him when he retires from the 007 role, just like we miss Sean Connery. The best Bond movies are action packed and embellished with the elegance of the characters, their clothes, the locations in which the scenes are shot, and the various eye-candy perks - Craig's posterior in tight chinos makes me want to go to the gym more and get tight chinos for myself. This modern Bond is more sensitive to the humanity of his 'girls', and yet his macho nature remains untainted. The overindulgence of the character is due to Le Carré, who used to be Her majesty's spy -- or was he a spy under his majesty? Can't recall. In any case, I LOVE M, Dame Dench is superb in the role - let's hope she stays. And perhaps fewer crashes and more dialog in the next Bond?
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An underrated gem of a Movie
xboy61431 March 2013
Many people are throwing trash at this movie. The directing sucks, the characters are dull, there's too much action and that Craig seems wooden and that the Title Song is awful. I feel that many people don't have anything nice to say about this film. Which is a shame because I love this movie, for all its worth. I know I cannot get people to start liking this movie so I'll give you Five Reasons while its worth watching. 1. The action is awesome. It's so brutal that it is really cool. Bond is beating people senseless in this film. There is one particular fight scene in a Bell Tower which will leave you gasping for breath and smiling at the same time. The shaky camera can get annoying but it seems to work in these fight scenes for some reason, I think it's just the tone of the movie which fits in the camera. 2.This film does not feel contrived. It feels so fresh and it is definitely the most different Bond film of them all. With this in mind, it works. It may not be as good as Casino Royale, but it has this interesting level to it which will keep you wanting to watch it. 3. The villain factor. Not wanting to spoil the film, but the central villain may seem a little bland, but he works in the sense as he reveals these other villains which could be used in Bond 24 or 25. You just have to watch it to understand my drift. 4. M and Bond. If there was a movie just of Judi Dench's M and Daniel Craig's Bond interacting for two hours straight, I would watch it and enjoy it. The interaction here is perfect. 5. Casino Royale story properly finished-It finishes the Casino story properly and you can't wait for Skyfall after seeing this film. So watch it, I like it a lot, a worthy entry.
9/10
Go see it and ignore the dinosaurs! Great Bond
just-me-just-now1 November 2008
I find some of these reviews hard to understand? It seems that many still want a "Carry-On Bond". If you would like Mr Bond to come out of a Venice Canal on a Gondola then you will be disappointed by Quantum of Solace. If you want a very well thought through development of the bond story you will love it! This is very obviously a continuation of Casino Royale. The story is straight forward and moves at a very rapid rate. There are the cars and the action is first rate although arguably a little to frantic and close up at times. This action integrates with a story intelligently presented with bond learning a little more about his loss in the previous movie and the plot and people involved. There are some very poignant moments (if your open enough to recognise them) which strengthen the movie as they did in Casino Royale.

There seems to be a wish for a repeat of the formulaic approach of the late 70's and 80's with the - now we have "Q" with his gadgets bit; now the bond babe bit and now the "Bond, Mr. Bond" bit. This is too superficial an approach for a genre and audience that has developed. The gadgets and the babes are there but less so and are integrated into the story. All of these things will I'm sure remain or return but should be used sparingly and appropriately to the story being told. This is what has been done in QOS with great effect to keep Mr Bond very much alive and relevant. I for one want 007 to last for many more years and this, as a continuation of Casino Royale, I think will allow this to happen.

Ignore the dinosaurs and go and see it for yourself - I'm sure, if you agree with the above, you will have a great time!
8/10
Great Bond move, shame about the fuzzy action shots.
Markconx10 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To whom it may concern.. Before QoS comes out on DVD please do another directors cut and ***** PLEASE RE-EDIT the ACTION SEQUENCES ***** The fuzzy speed-ed up action spoils what is essentially another very good Bond film. Seriously! most of the action sequences are just annoying and the connection with reality is lost. Casino Royale showed spectacular stunts particularly the stunt trashing the Aston Martin but I had to look away in Quantum of Solice, not for any sentiment for the car, which is an event of deep emotional contradiction, but because I got dizzy. Apart from this, Quantum of Solice is very good and a logical follow on from Casino Royale.
8/10
The Bond franchise is finally moving forward
rdeschene316 November 2008
In my opinion Moneypenny, Q the silly character names (Jaws, Goldfinger, Ms. Obtuse Sex Joke) fit their time but so did Tom Jones' swagger and you either move on or remain dated. This film makes me feel that the franchise holders have firmly decided to move on. I hope they maintain their resolve. The return of the PPK was questionable in this regard, but many others wont notice.

If you only saw Casino Royale once a few years ago, or not at all, this would probably be less enjoyable as you're not going to "get" the emotional state and interactions of various characters. The Casino Royale events aren't years ago to them but days or weeks.

Bond here is an emotionally broken person forcing himself onward and trying to find some quantum (smallest particle) of solace, and the other returning field ops aren't much better off. I don't think any other Bond has been able to convey that as convincingly as Daniel Craig, although Timothy Dalton did what he could the scripts weren't really written for it.

I don't care for the rapid fire editing style during chase and fight scenes, to the point where all I really know is they're trying to convey that it is perilous but I don't feel the peril. Speeding up the camera during fight and chase scenes in the old Bond films was far more distracting.

In the end this movie might fare better in the retrospect of the next few movies if they continue to develop Bond's character and he's not just "stuck" in his current emotional state.
8/10
Why the hate
colrmacdonald6 October 2021
Actually really like this Bond movie. It even gets better each time I watch it.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Black Tie Entertainment!
vhandoyo6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The trend of humanizing classic characters - such as Batman, Joker, and even Superman - by injecting more emotions continues. It was clearly expected that the James Bond being reintroduced by Mark Foster and Paul Haggis would be following this pattern. He is no longer a "superhero" that will save the whole world from a nuclear blast in the name of humanity. He is a brokenhearted agent in search of personal revenge.

Tacky it may sound, but Daniel Craig renders the fragility of Bond in a perfect gentleman manner. His every facial expression is true, and his every movement is well-choreographed. Craig carries his multiple tasks very well: an agent of masculinity, Tom Ford, Omega, and of pure entertainment. He cares even less about what kind of Martini he drinks, and he finds it unnecessary to introduce his "Bond. James Bond"-name. He's too busy, too masculine, and too troubled to follow the rules.

Pushing his character more the ground is M's tighter and tighter attachment to her beloved agent, whom she never addresses as a series of number - "007". Through a sinister remark, Bond spells out his son-mother relationship with M.

"Quantum of Solace" is a Bond with no sex, no gadget, and no mercy. (There's only one "Q" in this story, and it's not a good one!) Yet, the rather-simple storyline makes it accessible for every generation. The plot may seem to be paper thin, but the script actually is full of classy sensitivity that ascends every action sequence - which is plenty! "Quantum of Solace" is a black tie movie that holds the substance over style.
Enjoyable, but feels a bit like filler...
film_andy31 October 2008
QOS hits the ground running. Efficient, no messing about. But then comes a rather odd 'edit'. Bond opens the boot of the car, says a line - and then credits roll. It felt like the credits came half-way through a scene. And there are plenty more odd choices like this through-out the film. Cutaways to other non-related events during action sequences, which are trying to be different, but they don't work.

Casino Royale had everything: Freshness, the Bond 'sheen' and twinkle in its eye, but it also meant business. QOS feels like a revenge thriller, with very little jeopardy on offer. There were no big 'wow' moments: Granted, there were some great chase scenes, but they all felt like scenes from a Bourne movie - and that's the saddest thing. Bond becoming Bourne is not good for the franchise. Bond needs to set the bar, not follow someone else's.

Performances are good, although Dominic Greene doesn't have much depth beyond 'oily Frenchman'. Whereas Le Chiffre had facets to his character, Greene was just... toad-like! It was pacey, fun, but I couldn't really tell you what it was all about. It would have been nice to have more insight into the 'mysterious organisation' that is touted at the end of CR and at the start of QOS, but sadly we don't find out much more.

Licence To Kill mixed with For Your Eyes Only. Not the best Bond, but certainly not the worst.

7/10
7/10
Great Action Scenes But the Plot?
manny-9711 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The world of James Bond has its finger firmly on the pulse of our current political climate. In the 60s, cold war was the overarching theme of the Bond films, while catastrophic threat of a nuclear war painted the Ian Fleming classics of the 70s and 80s.

The 90s Bond flicks gave us subjects as wide and varied as global media tycoons, terrorists, and our favorite secret service agent ditching his code of honor for personal vendetta. In the new film "Quantum of Solace," the topical issue is not as sexy as nuclear warheads. The pedantic subject is, in fact, our environment, but Bond, once again, is out for revenge.

Daniel Craig who received much-deserved accolades for playing Bond in "Casino Royale" is back. The hiring of Craig signified the new direction of the franchise – meaner and grittier. "Quantum of Solace" sticks to the raw, edgy formula of "Casino Royale" but there's one thing missing – a solid plot.

The new film starts just days after "Casino Royale." Bond is still reeling from the death of his beloved Vesper (Eva Green). There's an explosive car chase in the beginning with Mr. White hiding in the trunk of Bond's Aston Martin.

Mr. White, if you remember, is the one responsible for the death of Vesper. This time, he's being interrogated by M (the always vibrant Dame Judi Dench), who must wade through some traitorous M16 agents.

Meanwhile, Bond is on a secret mission that will take him to Austria, Italy, and South America. He's out for revenge that leads M to question -- Can she trust Bond? Trust is the looming theme of the movie. There's a shadowy organization known as Quantum and they're hell-bent on global destruction. At the center is the evil environmentalist, Dominick Green (played by "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's" Mathieu Amalric), who's conspiring to take control of the world's most precious natural resources.

There's also a new Bond girl in town named Camille (Olga Kurylenko). Like Bond, she is also out for revenge. Her vengeance is aimed toward Bolivian General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) who put her and her family under villainous torture.

The stage is set and the narrative is moving forward but do you really care? Directed by Marc Forster (the splendid director of "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland"), the action scenes in "Quantum of Solace" overtakes its plot.

I enjoyed the staging of all the action sequences, and I specifically remember two great scenes. One, where a footrace started on rooftops and ended with our hero and the baddie hanging upside down still shooting at each other. The other is an elaborate staging of events inside an opera theater where most of the patrons are Quantum members.

The writing team of "Casino Royale" is back headed by "Crash's" Paul Haggis. The script's pacing is sharp, fast, and frenetic, but if the screen writing team learned one thing from the previous movie, slowing down and letting the narrative breathe will do wonders to the screenplay.

Craig still owns the role of Ian Fleming's secret service agent. His Bond is like a silent killer, murdering his victims with his stoic gaze. Bond's inner suffering is evident with just one, steely look.

The bottom-line? If you're looking for a smart plot, "Quantum of Solace" fails to deliver. But the clever staging of action scenes is worth your price of admission. The production design is also splendid! It hearkens back to the glory days of the classic Bond movies. Back when he was still drinking martini, shaken not stirred. And for that, "Quantum of Solace" gets 3 007 kisses
9/10
Execellent Sequel
Dee-S5 April 2009
Excellent movie, Excellent entertainment…I won't add spoilers, but be aware, it's a sequel to Casino Royale and is necessarily darker in tone. Bond has shut down emotionally as a consequence of Vesper's death and is driven to investigate and, to some extent, avenge her death.

Daniel Craig further extends his takeover of the role, he exudes a sense of sadness with a ruthless drive to move forward with his mission. Mention should be made of Judi Dench - she delivers another excellent performance as M.

You got sad people moaning that this Bond movie is missing elements of the old films. In my view this is a refreshing change. There only so many flat one liners and pathetic innuendos that the audience can take, as in some of the Brosnan era films....!! The only criticism I have is that the camera work in few scenes is jumpy, fast and confusing. Overall if it's an entertaining action movie that you want …then this it.

Casino Royale was an excellent movie too…but was just a little bit to long. This movie was a worthy sequel.
3/10
Quantum of crap
donalm11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What an empty,disappointing film! Bond has lost his identity. This film has none of the charm, fun, excitement and sheer sexiness of earlier Bond films. The action sequences are really badly cut. I reckon Connery would still make a better Bond than Daniel Craig. Heck, even Connery on a Zimmer frame would do it better. Mathieu Amalric is about as menacing as the Dalai Lama and Olga Kurylenko (Camille) just cannot act. I was totally unconvinced by Daniel Craig's portrayal of a man bent on revenge for the murder of his beloved Vesper (Yawn). A cynical,moneymaking exercise that will no doubt pack cinemas and keep the kids occupied on a wet day but ultimately it's all just so much p*ss and wind.
a redo
Jar84013 November 2008
her is something to think about. are they remaking the James bond series? and here is why I ask 1. in the 2006 007 movie the title was called Casino Royale after Ian Fleming first novel for the James bond books to start so dose that mean after Quantum of Solace is Dr. No 2. Felix Leiter is alive in Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace and I know for a fact that he died in A Licence To Kill so there is another sign of why I ask 3. I heard a roomer that Dr. No might be the next title and that they have set a date for bond 23 and 24 by the time of 2010 and 2012. If any one knows Please comment I want to know if this is true and if so Please make it. good or better as the first Dr. No
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
For Your Eyes Only!!!!
lilman2718 November 2008
When I first watched the trailer, I was very please on what I saw and could not wait for the release. It definitely lived up to all the excitement of Bond fans. I thought Casino Royale was a major success. I also thought that Daniel Craig could not star as the next James Bond but he KNOWS what he is doing and definitely has showed that he is more than capable of doing it. Quantum Of Solace was a very entertaining movie, it was not good as Casino Royale but definitely got some recognition. From the acting of Daniel Craig to the direction of Marc Foster it was excellent. I loved Olga is the movie as I am sure everyone has. She has done very well to portray a Bond girl. All the physical effort she has put in the movie has paid off. Now I think a lot of people are going to think differently about Daniel Craig as Bond.....James Bond. In conclusion, a very good movie with a lot of action and a great storyline.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The most action-packed and stylishly executed Bond film yet.
ign718 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
by Jim Vejvoda: Quantum of Solace is no Casino Royale, but then it never could be that. What made Casino Royale not only the best James Bond film to date but also a great film in its own right was its emphasis on Bond the man, its retelling of how he became 007, and his tragic relationship with the treacherous Vesper Lynd. Those are all unique to that particular story and can never be duplicated. Instead, QoS is content with being an extended but action-packed epilogue to its more thoughtful and romantic predecessor.

The first direct sequel in the Bond series, QoS picks up shortly after Casino Royale and finds 007 (Daniel Craig) investigating the shadowy network that recruited Vesper to serve as its double agent. M (Dame Judi Dench) fears that Bond is merely on a personal vendetta, but the secret agent insists that he is only concerned with doing his duty. During his globe-hopping quest -- which takes him to Italy, Haiti, Austria and, finally, Bolivia -- Bond identifies several leading members of the mysterious Quantum organization, including eco-friendly tycoon Dominic Greene (Matthieu Amalric).

Greene, who publicly touts his environmentalist agenda even as he cuts secret deals in order to gain control over various natural resources, has his designs set on Bolivia and is in cahoots with would-be dictator General Medrano (Joaqu?n Cosio). As one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, Greene has connections to both the CIA and MI6 so Bond finds himself wanted by his own people once he gets too close to the truth. But Bond is not alone in his battle to take down Greene. The beautiful and mysterious Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is, like Bond, a damaged soul out to right a wrong from her past. Together, they will take the fight to Greene's doorstep.

As complicated as that synopsis may sound, the truth is that Quantum of Solace offers one of the skimpiest stories yet in a Bond film. That's not to say it's bad; there just isn't much "there" there in terms of plotting or character development. The impact of last fall's Writers Strike can clearly be felt. There might have been some more meat on the bone had the filmmakers and screenwriters Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade had more time to hone the story rather than rushing to beat a strike deadline. While there are several crackling dramatic scenes between Bond and various supporting characters that give QoS much needed dramatic heft, the story falters when it comes to the villain's diabolical plot. It's a fascinating and topical notion that deserved further development.

Thankfully, Bond -- as played once more by Daniel Craig -- is the best thing in this Bond movie, which couldn't be said of many of his predecessors' outings. With his wolf-like eyes and menacing presence, Craig's Bond is a hunter who methodically and ruthlessly stalks his prey. Bond's wounded pride and shattered spirit is the heart of this story, but he is ultimately still a good man despite his vicious occupation. Interestingly, many critics have made the same mistake as M does in this story: they assume that Bond is out for revenge. It's not quite that simple. Bond has learned from the mistakes he made in Casino Royale, and analyzes things first rather than always letting his ego get the better of him. That's not to say he is no longer brash, just that he is now savvier and smarter. Bond isn't out for vengeance so much as he is looking for answers, closure, a measure of comfort. A quantum of solace.

Judi Dench continues to make M a fascinating character in her own right, part boss and part surrogate mother. We also get a better sense of Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter and of how he fits in with the CIA. Giancarlo Giannini's Mathis, another holdover from Casino Royale, enjoys several John le Carr?-like scenes with 007 that achieve a level of genuine pathos seldom seen in a Bond film. Olga Kurylenko is solid as Camille, but her character is more along the lines of Melina Havelock in For Your Eyes Only than a true love interest like Vesper or an ass-kicking counterpart such as Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies. Camille isn't a terribly complex character, but Olga does a good job of delivering the role's more dramatic moments so that Camille doesn't seem so one-note. The other Bond girl, Gemma Arterton, has a small but spicy turn as Agent Fields, a trench coat-wearing redhead who might not be as all business as she'd like to think. Unfortunately, while Matthieu Amalric certainly has the countenance of a Bond baddie, he could have used more screen time in order to become a truly memorable Bond villain. As it is he is a better "big bad businessman" than Elliot Carver or Max Zorin but lacks the presence of Goldfinger or the cunning of Le Chiffre.

It may lack the grandeur and substance of Casino Royale, but Quantum of Solace is nevertheless a unique and thrilling Bond film and one hell of a good time. Thanks to Craig's confident and commanding performance, Forster's visual sensibilities, and an array of breathtaking action sequences, Quantum of Solace succeeds in continuing to reboot the Bond franchise for a new era. www.ign.com®
6/10
..so fast that many people felt asleep during the movie!
sduemmler13 November 2008
it's OK that the new bond is tough and as hard as it is. Daniel Craig does a good job and gives Bond a new style which is OK and closer to the original books.

but the action scenes are so fast that you think you are in or part of a video game and sometimes you think you are playing one. That is really hard to enjoy the movie cause you have to concentrate so hard, that some people felt asleep during the movie, that never happened to me in the past and I'm not that old ;-)! Let's think about the speed of the action scenes in the future.

The movie itself and the story is nice - but his opponent is the worst one I have ever seen, no charisma and hard to realize that he is the one to take care about.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Bond that does not touch
Erik-13222 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 22nd official Bond is a big disappointment. Before I saw "Casino Royal" I was very skeptical about Craig playing Bond, but after watching the movie I was convinced! The new Bond seemed to be a perfect recapture of the Connery days combined with modern aspects. "Casino Royale" dealt with a lot of the old ingredients and set them up to our current world. Yes, there was less humor in it and a popular character like Q was dropped. Nevertheless the first Craig-Bond just hit the bulls eye.

But with "Quantum" the writers/producers and the director took the wrong way. It's all too confusing and this is mainly not due to the very fast editing of many sequences. Of course, sometimes the viewer gets lost and it is not easy to make out who is doing what (not to speak of the why). But what strikes me most is the lack of interest in character. Yes, the action is done fine, some of the locations are great. But who cares if the story is almost nil? Yes, it is said, that Bond cares about the loss of Vesper Lynd as shown in "Casino Royale". But it is just that: it is said. But it is hard to believe Bond his feelings. And the villain? Well, for me Daniel Greene is the most boring antagonist ever in a Bond movie.

The producers follow in style movies like the "Bourne"-trilogy. That's okay. But it is no need to avoid almost everything a Bond should have: some witty remarks, believable characters and a story that has really some points of interest. And can we please have in the 23rd Bond back the main music theme, incorporated more into the movie? That famous tune is almost not present during the "Quantum"-film till the end credits.

Altogether, this is a too cold and fishy Bond movie.
9/10
Quantom of Doom….for archaic Bond lovers
Instantdeath24 November 2008
To answer two questions in relation to the title.

1. The second of the new Bond franchise has broken the mould beyond repair. 2. If you're a Bond simpleton,who would like Bond to retain his foppishness and complete missions with little effort while acquiring a supermodel, this is simply not for you.

To start, this Bond film has broken all the rules of Bond films, predominantly the fact that this film picks up exactly where the last leaves off, quite frankly, it's a welcome change from the old format, where only likable villains( namely Jaws) would appear for some cameo slot.

Many feverant Bond followers have decried this attempt as more Jason Bourne than Bond, but lets be blunt, Jason Bourne is the real character James Bond should be, instead of this watered down Connery/Lasley/Moore characters that the franchise churned out, and yes churned out is the right phrase, the scripts seemed to come off a fairytale ending factory. And to be frank again, Bourne was so successful because that's the sort of secret agent that many of the 'fed up with Bond' gang could relate to and vigorously petitioned Bourne's style to be implemented to Bond.

Now it has been done, and I was impressed by Casino Royal and I did like QOS for the situation it was orientated to capture, an unrefined 007 looking for revenge at any cost. Of course the simpleton Bond lovers immediately jumped to the mantra of: 'no plot, who were the bad guys, why wasn't there any gadgets, why does Bond look like the bad guy'. In all honesty, these are the traits that kept the Bond film comatose from any life being breathed into it.

The new film removes the old stereotypical USSR as the bad guy and implants a modern slant, a more realistic espionage front, instead of the tired old turn up in a tux and drink yourself senseless before pulling the best looking girl in the room.

A new dawn for Bond!
7/10
Not so bad
liamiskwl11 November 2008
i believe that this film has been slated far to much, for what i deem to be a decent attempt. James Bond has been humanised! this obviously takes away some of the classic bonds features like his wit and his womanising ways, but in the end we have a believable character. the way roger Moore used to karate chop a villain on the back of the head to knock them out was actually quite laughable (some might say silly) but people accepted that for bond. now however with the updated bond, Daniel Craig delivers a realistic approach to fight scenes and the general emotions and feelings a human being would be going through. i actually felt that he was very angry with vesper's death and wanted him to go after the villain whilst taking down quantum rather than the other way round. the film begins with a confusing extremely fast moving opening with very quick editing which mostly looks like a blur. however the action scenes are good and modernised with unique sequences. however the bond villain Dominic Greene doesn't look violent or seem at all scary and powerful, he is actually puny and thin, this fact alone doesn't make it seem like bond is having a real fight with anyone, more like just another henchman.

lastly after the success, storyline and just amazing overall film making of casino royale its no surprise that the hype for the follow up would be huge. this would lead to people's own personal expectations being raised, when eventually the film is not amazing but just plain good and overall watchable.
4/10
UMMM did the movie finish? Thats it?
stubes1915 November 2008
I am a big big big bond fan and this movie ended and I just thought, "thats it?"

1) needs more "BOND" what is this 3 measures of this 2 of that 1 of this and a orange. Bring back the Vodka Martni.

2) CAR!!!!

3) more development into the sex scene. I am not saying to show him getting it on just it seemed like they made the movie and was like OH wait he didn't have sex and threw it in there.

4) WTF was that title song I just wanted that to end. WORST TITLE SONG EVER. not even good as a song song let alone a bond film song.

5) editing!!!. Some scene I didn't know who was bond and who was the bad guy since it was flashing to fast. 6) who gives a Bleep about Bolivia that should have been a stepping stone to the real evil master plan. So Bolivia needs water and charges more. Maybe they want to make Bolivia their base to then take over the world I don't know but I didn't really know what the real problem was besides no one is believing bond.

This film did have a couple of moments and some good Bondness but all in all not very good. I am the first to step up and say that Bond movies are better then they are because they have the Bond Mystic to them but its hard to defend this one.

PS WHERE WAS Q!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7/10
good film bad director
Johnnymlr21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film had so much promise and a great story line to go on from Casino Royal and it was all flushed down the toilet by bad directing. Why they went with Marc Foster is beyond me, but I was surely disappointed by some of the scenes where the dialog felt so forced and unnatural. Especially the whole beginning scene that should be able to set the tempo for the movie. Sure the action scenes were great, but it takes more than that to have a great movie. Although the fire scene was a bit much it seems he tried to hard to make everything unbelievable it really was unbelievable. HOW BOUT SOME MORE PLOT MR. DIRECTOR!!!!!! Oh well hopefully the go with a better director for the third one or this franchise is going to die out like it did with Timothy Dalton.
6/10
A slightly above average yet forgettable Bond film
dontesuave23 February 2022
Quantum of Solace is the anticipated follow-up to 2006 Casino Royale. Unfortunately it doesn't live up to the hype. Although we do see more action this time around. The story however lacks any huge substance. It's very clear from the beginning that the villain is no true match for Bond nor is his "right hand man". If you're going to sit back and watch all the Daniel Craig Bond movies, it wouldn't hurt to skip this one.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Early review of Quantum of Solace (Sony Pictures Studios 11/11/08)
deetjay13 November 2008
I had a chance to see Quantum of Solace a bit early here in LA. Here are my thoughts: I have anxiety going into any franchise film. Will it leave me eagerly anticipating the next installment (The Dark Knight) or will it have me dreading what awful things the writers and director will do to sink the ship even lower (Crystal Skull). Quantum of Solace never quite ventures into the realm of mediocrity like Crystal Skull, but sadly does nothing to elevate the franchise beyond it's current position and ultimately comes off as disappointment following its well crafted predecessor.

Craig is Bond. There's no question about it. He exudes confidence with every step and every line uttered. In Casino Royale we see Bond as the flawed hero. Prone to mistakes, like any human, but still cold and calculating. This trend continues in the new film but we lose any sense of his humanity. He is a emotionless killing machine (a bit of running joke in the film). Without being able to relate to the character, the audience is left detached, merely watching action scene on top of action scene, without caring about what happens next.

Which brings me to my biggest gripe about the film. The action. I would say it was well choreographed if I knew what the hell was going on. A lot of people have likened it to the Bourne films, but I think it goes beyond that. I tried to count the number of seconds a scene would be on screen before the next cut, but the exercise was futile. Hyper editing at it's finest. Kudos to Marc Forster for tackling such an ambitious project like Bond, but the man either doesn't know how to direct action or his editors (Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson) are on speed. The fact that we are subjected to this kind of style is painful, compounded by the fact that film is one giant action set piece. Yes there are a few quiet moments (Bond's scenes with Mathis, particularly stand out) but not nearly enough to slow the pace. Gone is character development, relegated to a few fleeting moments with M.

As for the Bond women both Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton do an adequate job as Camille and Fields respectively. Both are easy on the eyes, and can handle themselves in the acting department. Fields is nothing more than a minor character in the grand scheme of things, while Camille is an essential piece to the emotional crescendo (or lack their of) of the film. The two share a desire for revenge and their respective journeys mimic each other from beginning to end. It's not necessarily a spoiler to say both find solace by the time the credits role.

Finally we come to the villain Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric. Much like my opinion about Marc Forster, I feel that Amalric was miscast. Sure he is a malevolent bastard, but in no way does he come off as intellectual or physical threat to Bond. His evil plan is well thought out, but like the film itself, it is a let down after you realize that's all there is to it.

After I left the theater all I could do was sigh. The excitement I had after watching Casino Royale was no where to be found. In it's place, slight indifference towards the Bond franchise and a sense of dread of what's to come next.

I am well aware that this review comes off as negative, but by all means go see the movie. If you are fan of the Bond series (like I am) you will find bits and pieces here and there that will make you smile and it will give hope that the franchise has only taken a minor detour, rather than gone completely off the rails.
8/10
Not as good as Casino Royale BUT ..
romayneohara31 October 2008
Quantum of Solace was nowhere near as good as Casino Royale but I'd have been surprised if it had been, as CR was so hard to live up to. QoS was full of all the usual stuff, high speed action, great actors (Judi Dench is amazing!, fabulous scenery, beautiful girls,etc, but there was undoubtedly a feeling that something was missing. Maybe it's because this film continued on from where Casino Royale left off, therefore there had to a sombre note. I wouldn't write this film off, I just think it needs to be watched a few times to thoroughly absorb it. I've given the film an 8 out of 10 and look forward to getting my own copy when it comes out on DVD.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What Just Happened?
swlabr41322 November 2008
I love Bond movies. I thought the that Casino Royale was one of the best Bond movies ever made, right up there with Goldfinger and Goldeneye. And I hoped that the new Bond people were heading in the right direction.

This movie was pretty bad. The first half hour or forty-five minutes of the movie are so confusing, and the chase scenes are so heavily edited, that by the time some sort of plot develops, you have already lost interest. Which by the way, I still don't know what the plot really is to this movie.

The Bond girls in this one were also pretty bad. Strawberry Fields just wasn't needed. And the main one (can't remember her name right now) never really turns into a Bond girl. She's just another girl in the movie, really. Even the chick from Moonraker was a better Bond girl.

And even Moonraker had a climax. This movie had nothing. The ending was pretty bad, mostly because it didn't even seem like an ending. The most anti-climatic ending to a Bond movie, ever.

The one good part of this movie is the acting. Daniel Craig is a superb Bond, he plays the part really well, and Judi Dench is always great. The man who plays Greene isn't horrible, but he's no Le Chiffe. And the Bond girl wasn't horrible. It's the story and the script that really brought this one down.

All in all, don't see this one in theaters. Rent it on DVD. This just wasn't a good Bond movie. Even a misplaced Goldfinger reference couldn't save it.
2/10
The last lines say it all...
the23rdjoker3 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" is an expertly crafted, intelligent, well-written, action-packed and just plain brilliant reinvigoration of the Bond franchise, with Daniel Craig as the best of all the Bonds that have come before. "Quantum of Solace" has none of those things. If you weren't already privy to the knowledge that this film shared a number of crew members from the Bourne movies - 2nd unit director (AKA the person that does the action scenes), editor, etc - it becomes pretty obvious within (literally) seconds of the opening of this film. (This Bourne-ishness reaches a ridiculous zenith during a scene in which Bond changes into a jacket that looks remarkably similar to the one Matt Damon wore in "Bourne Ultimatum". I swear, this moment provoked me to shout at the screen: "OH COME ON!") But whilst the action scenes in Bournes 2 and 3 are equally as frantically edited and shot as the ones in "QoS", they were much easier to follow and get swept up in. In "QoS", the action scenes (of which this film is almost exclusively filled with, for lack of a coherent plot to adhere to) are just too quick, too frantic, too incomprehensible and entirely pointless. To add insult to injury, the astounding practical effects work of "CR" is here replaced by frequent (and obvious, and shoddy) CGI work, which completely takes you out of the film. Though that's not the only thing that does that to the viewer. The writing is quite unspectacular, with character motivations murky and unclear, barely any memorable dialogue, and the supposed plot of the film being almost entirely non-existent. I can tell you the good parts of the film in just this paragraph: David Arnold's score and the Four Tet song at the end (but NOT the opening theme song), the cameos from directors Guillermo Del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron (spot them if you can), and the unexpected appearance of Stana Katic from "Castle". That is literally it. And all of that is why the film's final lines are so pertinent. M says: "Bond...I need you back." Bond replies: "I never left." Oh, yes you did, James. Really, you did. (P.S. - There's an argument to be made that Christopher Nolan has been subtly remaking "QoS" in every film he's made since it was released. Or maybe I'm just going mad...) ((P.P.S. - Thank god for "Skyfall".))
10/10
Hit me or whatever, but this has to be one of the better Bond films... Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
M: Bond, We want you back. Bond: I never left.

While the Bond franchise was getting staler by the day, with the protagonist ("Bond, James Bond") growing older and getting a tad foolisher, earning a bit more obstinate hatred from his head, M, it was time Bond changed. And well, he did. With a supercool avatar, enters Daniel Craig who slips into the legendary fictitious British Secret Service Agent 007 James Bond with ease, thereby adding a new angle and spice to his character. James Bond is now a bit more serious and intense, and a bit less of a playboy (though he still is a bit of it). His love for Vesper showed the audience that he was not much of a womanizer that the previous Bonds were shown to be. The realism now shows that James Bond does not have to be dependent enough on gadgets, which justifies the sudden disappearance of Q (also sometimes known as the Quartermaster), who is rumored to return in Bond 23, alongwith Moneypenny, whose reason for disappearance is yet unknown, but does not bother you if you are an unbiased Bond fan.

Post the release of CASINO ROYALE (Craig's first Bond film, thereby marking a reboot of the Bond franchise, transporting it into a completely new timely, thereby disposing of the unnecessary gadgetry and the likes) most critics wend as far ahead as to say that Craig has to be the best Bond since Sean Connery. I had gone to watch ROYALE at the cinemas, and I rightly feel so, because of the mere fact that this Bond is far more intelligent and does not need to depend on metallic toys to move forward the story.

Two years later comes the twenty second instalment of Bond, which turns out to be the first direct sequel to the previous film. Since the previous Bond film (according to myself) was an explosive action thriller with all the ingredients to keep audiences at the edge of the seat, my expectations had skyrocketed for this one. And so, despite some highly offensive reviews, i grabbed a DVD to watch this movie.

And guess what? My expectations were more than met. And how! The film starts immediately after it had ended, with the scene pre-title sequence showing Bond being chased by a string of people (later turning out to be Mr. White's men). This very scene registers in your mind, making you wait for the movie to begin. The title sequence does not include the gun-barrel sequence, as had it been included, it would have made for a very illogical one, as Bond is not yet ready to remain a Double-O unless he accomplishes one of his most personal missions, thereby uncovering an organization's (named Quantum, thereby giving the title a suitably dual meaning) sinister motives, that being monitored by the smooth and dark nemesis, outwardly an innocuous environmentalist industrialist, Dominic Greene (played to the T, and fantabulously, by Mathieu Almaric). The Bond here, for the first time, is emotionally scarred, seeking revenge, and thereby, "Solace", by finishing off, one by one, each of the people involved in the omnious outfit called Quantum. M here acts more like a mother-figure to Bond (though not openly shown, but subtly expressed through the conversations ("You look like hell; when was the last time you ever slept?", says a concerned M to James Bond; I won't write further, as some conversations between Bond and M are very poignant). The gunbarrel, instead, appears in the end, therefore making it sensible enough, showing us that 007 is now in full form.

The action is explosive and doesn't give us time to breathe. For those who compare the action to the Jason Bourne franchise, let me tell them that Jason Bourne has already carved a niche for himself and his character (that of an amnesiac American Government-employed assassin) is miles apart from Bond (a ruthless, heartbroken British Seret Agent), not in terms of likability or betterness, but in terms of the fact that both have their own respective place, and should not be mixed up due to biasedness.

Acting is explosive. Daniel Craig emotes perfectly, making us feel for him. Olga Kurlyenko emotes similarly, and thereby they make a striking pair, though they do not romance. In turn, in their last meeting and conversation, she barely kisses him upon the forehead, with Forster giving us one of those many poignant emotional moments in the film. Dame Judi Dench has shown those shades of M that have not been seen before. She acts to perfection. Her straightforward, snappy attitude still remains ("Impress me...", "Surely you know better than this..." and other such statements show that while she still respects Bond, professionally as well as emotionally, she can still retain her snappy professional composure). And how can we foget the villain? Mahtieu Almaric does a smooth Job playing the suave villain.

Overall, I felt this Bond movie was very much needed in the franchise to aptly know the characters in the movie as well as in the franchise. While Bond's and M's character-sketches are vividly and lavishly explicit and detailed, the other characters have also not been left out. I felt it was a fantastic outing and a worthy successor to the high-octane thriller CASINO ROYALE. Beat me or whatever, it won't change my opinion.

I rest my case, and give it a 10, just like I would give for CASINO ROYALE.
7/10
Good but to much bourne
henthoven4 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Last weekend I traveled with my brother to Londen to see the movie. In my opinion it was a good movie but I was a little bit disappointed. The opening sequence showed immediately that the action scenes in the movie go really quick. Just like the action scenes in the bourne movies. I really like the bourne movies but I don't think that a bond movie should follow that direction. Because there is a lot of action that has been filmed in the 'bourne' style the feeling of a bond movie is missing. It is a good thing that the story continues the events of Casino Royale because the questions left after that movie are answered well. Especially the last sequences of the movie do this in a good way. I think the new story about green is a little bit thin and thats a pity. One last thing. I think they should have put the gunbarrel in front of the movie instead.
8/10
Act 2
mgo2-114 November 2008
This film needs to be treated as the second act of Casino Royale. The reason that it's being ripped into by critics and viewers alike is that for some reason they were expecting a stand alone Bond film - I keep hearing that this "is a good action flick but not a good Bond film". This is a direct sequel, something that has not been done in Bond before and therefore something that creates a different kind of finished product. In fact this is more of a continuation of Casino Royale than your average sequel, it really is the second act (of hopefully a solid three act story).

A few other notes: I enjoyed the directing in the non-action scenes, as well as the score. The opera scene was particularly awesome.

Heard a lot about the Bourne-style cuts during the action scenes and I agree that it is annoying at times. I had the same issue with some of the final fights in Dark Knight. But apparently that's the trend right now so I guess I'll have to deal. It doesn't severely detract from the overall experience.

I guess the best way to articulate my review here is to compare both Casino Royale and QOS to Man on Fire (2004). QOS is like the second part of that film when Denzel just goes off. True, it's a little weird the way that they decided to split up CR and QOS, and also the lack of much of a refresher in QOS, but maybe they were expecting a little more intellectual effort on the part of the viewer. Either way, just make sure you watch CR sometime prior to seeing QOS.
9/10
Amazing Bond movie,but lacking
Xanic17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I became a James Bond fan 2 years ago when Casino Royale came out and knocked me off my feet! Ever since, I have been catching a lot of Bond movies on TV and they are all enjoyable. Tonight, I happened to catch this new one and I must say, the critics were wrong about this movie and I enjoyed it immensely, but unfortunately, I also found it lacking in wit and style. Nevertheless, I loved the action scenes and more.

The plot was easy to follow, with a supposed environmentalist named Dominic Greene planning to gain control of all water in Bolivia, with James Bond tracking him down. He comes across Camille, also troubled by a tragedy just as Bond was with Vesper Lynd, and together these two track down their enemies to get revenge.

The acting was top notch as always; Daniel Craig, I must say, is truly promising and even though he acts with little emotion throughout the film, I could sense the anger and cold heart in him, and I could've sworn that he cried when Mathis was killed! SO unlike him to cry over someone even when he didn't like him. Olga Kurylenko was fine as Camille and is probably the first Bond woman not to bed him when they first meet, which is fine with me. Judi Dench played M superbly and is also a good actress along Craig.

The action scenes were a little dizzying to me, but isn't that how it is? There was also a handful of calm scenes which critics wrongly suggested that there was nothing but badly edited action scenes. I have never seen the Bourne films as a side note, so I wouldn't know how the director edited the action. The script was in fine shape despite the rush of the Writer's Strike and it had plenty of intelligence for my taste.

So, overall, this movie was fantastic and, IMO, just as good, if not better, than Casino Royale. And as another side note, I am not a hardcore James Bond fan like others and don't know how the formula should be set, but if it's like this and maybe better in the next movie, then by all means, bring it on!!! I'll be ready!
4/10
Worst of the Craig Bond movies
peter-beaves5 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rewatching the Daniel Craig Bond movies and found that I hadn't watched Quantum of Solace, well not all the way through anyway. It jars that this is supposed to follow straight on from Casino Royale in almost real time, but the direction of QoS is so different from Casino Royale that it might have well have been a few years later. I found the action sequences too loud, too long, too violent and too many. The editing of these scenes also made them seem disjointed and disconnected. There's not much of a plot and the villain is a bit underwhelming. All the acting is fine but the Bond style is missing somehow, there's little elegance or glamour in the characters or locations. There's no Q so there's no outrageous technology to chuckle at, just guns and fists and more guns. Also strangely humourless which I guess was deliberate but again a Bond film without some cheesy humour is missing something. One last stupid thing - the hotel in the Bolivian desert is powered by hydrogen fuel cells which is nonsense as it's a desert and banks of solar panels would be used. Oh, but then it wouldn't all blow up at the end would it!! Oh not the last stupid thing - covering Gemma Arterton in oil in a poorly judged 'homage' to Shirley Eaton in Goldfinger was just crass.
8/10
Fast and furious... Bond is Back
jamie-wire31 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Be warned, this review of Quantum of Solace does contain one or two spoilers.

Quantum of Solace is a definitely a film with flaws, but despite that it is a worthy addition to the weighty James Bond collection.

The first problem arrives before the titles with the viewer thrown head-first into an action-packed car chase along the west shore of Lake Garda. We know not who is chasing Bond or why, and once Bond eventually pulls over, he opens the boot of his car and asks someone to get out. A voice behind me asked quizzically: "Who's that?" The casual viewer will not remember the end of Casino Royale, what dapper suit Bond was wearing, who Mr White is and why he might be in Bond's car.

The lack of exposition is a theme throughout the film - it moves at a breakneck speed without giving the audience a chance to catch up and put the various pieces into place. At one stage I made the mistake of dwelling on a previous scene and then missed the transition to another country (the name of which flashed up as I tuned out). I'm still not sure where Bond went to.

The locations are stunning. The film looks fantastic - when the camera is still enough to allow you to see it. The first 15 minutes I really struggled to focus on the screen as cars spun, punches were thrown, scaffolding collapsed and people fell. This style of action continues throughout.

Thematically, the film builds on Casino Royale's motif of "who can you trust?" Vesper and Mathis were offered as potential double agents in that film, and further betrayals are the order of the day in QOS.

Quantum of Solace - a Fleming title, the Quantum bit now coming to mean the sinister organisation that will hang like a spectre over the franchise from now on. We get an insight into who exactly is involved with Quantum in one of the best scenes in the film, which for that reason I'll go no further with discussing. But again, Quantum was almost brushed under the carpet at that point, the name being spoken briefly enough that I'm sure a lot of people did not pick up on it.

Other reviews have been critical of the Dominic Greene character but I don't see him as a problem at all. He's an extortionist, classic Bond villain material. He's ruthless and will kill when he needs to, yet is also a coward as many other Bond villains have been. Much like the SPECTRE villains of the past, you never have to consider him to be at the top of the tree so to speak, something that gives his role added back-up in the face of criticism. He is not a lone megalomaniac on a mission to rule the world. The organisation behind him is his strength.

I have seen two other things criticised by other reviewers. Firstly the theme song. For me, it works in context well enough, though I did not like it in the isolation of the radio or You Tube. Secondly, the ending. Apparently the ending was changed. If it was, I'm glad as the ending we have been given ties up all the loose ends from Casino Royale and means Craig's 3rd outing can be a self-contained story.

I cannot believe it has taken me so long to mention Daniel Craig. For the record, I felt his performance was excellent. The Bond character, to use a well-worn cliché, goes on a journey over the course of the two films and at the beginning of QOS is definitely veering off-course. By the film's conclusion the poor judgement calls that seem to mar the first 4 hours of this two-part story seem to have passed through his system, and I feel we'll see a very different James Bond in film 23.

See you in two years time! Score: 7.5 / 10
6/10
My name is Bond.... err......Jason Bourne
vindana23 December 2008
disclaimer - no matter how much this movie disappointed the franchise fans, i still believe Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever.

now the movie, a B grade Bourne,compared to the super spy trilogy. Bourne's action sequences were superior clearer and more effective. where in the QOS the movie toned a nice pace throughout, but the clean fighting between Bond and enemies were somewhat similar to Hulk's adventures in Ang Lee's direction.

it is little bit sad that the contemporary Bond continue to deviate from the original series personality. This Bond mind you blows you away with his charisma,charm and toughness like the predecessors never did. But that could sum up as the only good thing about QOS. That is Daniel Craig's enormous appeal carries the movie, where people forget the conventional Bond and enjoy the (bourne again) James carry out his missions in style of a new generation.

the story, anti climax ending lacked a punch. And the girls were fresh but limited to erotic engagements which Bond is an expert of. The bad guys have become unauthentic and monotonous. Marc Foster has done good work in his previous efforts but this may seem a totally different ballpark for him to score freely. with Craig's arrival Casino Royale turned out to be a pleasant surprise. QOS has given fans too much to worry about, the next Bond outing will have a lot to catch up if fans are to find some Solace.
7/10
Quantom of Solace ! :D
axel_kalmar1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantom of Solace, is very different from a classic bond movie but this is entertaining! Daniel Craig is back with one hell of a action theater, the story in quantom of solace is hard to get and hard to follow, but good acting, good and pretty new bond girl, and a great acting criminal rival, they brought a scene which is very the same as in (Goldfinger), one of the earliest (bond-movies, a woman covered in black oil in this one thou instead of gold, I would say that the second half of this movie is the best bond half ever, and the first scene is also one of the best car chasing i've ever seen, Dominiq Greene, the new bondrival is exactly how I want him to be. He is more like a rat, a coward, and weak. But very seriously and dangerous.
6/10
It is not Bond anymore
megafakinkul11 November 2008
Having seen the trailers for "Quantum of Solace", I was hoping that the producers would keep up the standard of "Casino Royale", which I think was quite a refreshing look at the Bond franchise. How disappointed was I when I at last saw the whole movie. Unfortunately, "Quantum of Solace" is one of the least exciting and interesting movies in the Bond series.

First of all, the storyline is dull and it did not excite me in any way. Bond is seeking revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd, his girl from "Casino Royale", and he discovers a powerful organization that masterminded Le Chiffre's actions. However, that is something that the viewers already know from the last movie, so "Quantum of Solace" does not bring anything new in terms of the plot. One of the characters vital to the plot in "Casino Royale" returns in this movie as if to exonerate his wrongs from the previous installment, but that also is not anything new. Bond's quest takes him through several countries around the globe but it all seems a bit forced and I had the impression that the only reason for this was to keep up with the tradition of the series. Bond is in conflict with M, his superior, but that is nothing new, either. In "Licence to Kill" M revoked Bond's licence to kill and considered him a rouge agent for a time. "Quantum of Solace" follows a similar path when M decides to block Bond's credit cards after he disobeys her direct orders. As usual, everything turns out just fine, but the bitter aftertaste is ever present in this movie. It begins in the very first moments of "Quantum of Solace", where there is a chase sequence that mirrors the sequence in "Casino Royale", where Bond pursuits a suspect in Madagascar. Then there is a dogfight which ends on a similar note as in "Goldeneye". We also have a very direct reference to "Goldfinger" in the person of agent Fields. All these references show, in my opinion, the biggest weakness of "Quantum of Solace" - the lack of a good script.

Second of all, the actors do not meet the expectations and almost all of them display very toned and flat performances. Craig is not as fresh and surprising as in "Casino Royale" where he played throughout the movie with just one facial expression. Now he seems even duller than in the previous installment and he just seems incapable of playing a man torn between his personal revenge and his duty to queen and country. The Bond girl is also, in my opinion, a misunderstanding as she is completely devoid of any talent. She may be good-looking but that is all, and I do not know who cast her as the leading girl in this movie. The villain that Bond faces this time is also quite common - he is not distinguished by any feature and if you did not know that he was the bad guy you would not have guessed. I think it was a good idea to show that that the villains nowadays do not necessarily have to be one-eyed, scarred or crippled but the movie makers went too far and made Dominic Greene into a rat-like creature who does not even scare or excite.

Third of all, Bond movies do not resemble Bond movies anymore. There are no catchphrases, like the classic "My name is Bond. James Bond". There are no Bond trademarks, like his martini drink or his gadgets. And what I miss most are Bond's sharp-tongued remarks to other characters. "Casino Royale" had much fewer of them than previous Bond movies but "Quantum of Solace" lacks even one such wisecrack. There is no humour in this movie - an element as important to the Bond franchise as the famous tune that is played throughout every movie. Without the humour, Bond is not Bond anymore - it is just another action movie.

"Casino Royale" wanted to refresh Bond's image and it successfully did. However, "Quantum of Solace" fails to follow in the footsteps of its predecessor and it seems as if the James Bond character was transported into another action movie which does not portend well for the Bond franchise.
8/10
Craig is Okay, but Norm MacDonald Makes the Movie a Must-See
guywhoreviewsmovies13 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Casino Royale, I expected a lot from QoS. It delivered. While the days of Sean Connery and Norm Macdonald are behind us, Daniel Craig can still deliver the single line quips we Bond lovers have come to love and expect.

I'd like to indulge you in some of my favorite one-liners from QoS, which I'm sure will be quoted for years to come.

"I'm getting too old for this," admits Craig upon hearing that the world is in danger of getting blown up once again, and he has to save everyone's ass one more time before he can finally take his MI6 pension, move to a quiet English suburb and retire.

"How does my poop taste?" quips Craig, whilst defecating in the open mouth of a Russian spy.

"How does my pee-pee taste?" says Craig minutes later while urinating into the open mouth of the same Russian spy.

"I used to be on Saturday Night Live," remarks Macdonald, momentarily breaking out of his character (James' father) to address the audience, simultaneously delighting most and confusing all.

"Prepare to meet your maker," Craig advises a rag-tag army of animatronic dinosaurs that have recently turned sentient, as he leads them to the manufacturing plant where they were created.

Craig has the quiet subtlety and charm of Connery, and the raw sexual appeal of a young Macdonald.

Read more at http://guywhoreviewsmovies.blogspot.com/
8/10
Not as good as Casino Royale, but still...
MrOtioc16 November 2008
For Quantum of Solace, which is kick-a** title by the way, I had very high expectations due to the fact that Casino Royale was so good and Daniel Craig was awesome as Bond, but I think I left the theater thinking "It could be better yet I liked it a lot".

Daniel Craig returns as 007 in a direct sequel to casino Royale, where his main purpose is to avenge Vespers death, killing every bad guy on the way. In CR it was killing villains that got away, in QS, its just killing out of revenge. As I was watching the movie I couldn't help to think that the style was a lot like the Bourne movies, and yeah that was cool, when it's effective, which in this case, it isn't. The actions scenes are way too fast, but still, they look so awesome.

In the end you will be happy you spent money on the movie, a) because it is a bond movie; b) because it has Daniel Craig, Marc Forster and Olga Kurylenko in the credits; and c) it's an action movie all the way. A good movie.
9/10
After long dreadful years Bond is finally back!
the_flox11 November 2008
Great movie! At last Bond is BACK!

When Moore was Bond and the right hand of the villain had lethal teeth of steel everything was bad and laughable. It became better with Timothy Dalton, then went downhill again with Brosnan and his invisible cars. (With the exception of "The world is not enough").

Now Bond at last became a believable character again. And both Daniel Craig movies were to me a hell of a ride, action at its best, with a minimal but strong plot (those things exist, thinking of "Rear window" for example... naah, maybe not that good an example, but there wasn't terribly much plot) and an agent, who is not infallible.

This is of course personal taste, but I have reason to believe, that a lot of criticism contradicts itself.

A lot of long-time bond lovers miss the gadgets, the shaken Martini, the "Bond, James Bond"-line, Mrs. Moneypenny and so on and they say this is not James Bond any more.

What is Bond then?

Is Bond a character solemnly defined by the drinks he orders, the women he gets or the car he drives? If that is SO important and even what makes Bond "Bond" it should be possible to give all these things to Rowan Atkinson for example, put him on a mission and there would be no difference at all to the previous Bond movies.

So please help me: What really makes a Bond movie?

Or else: If Roger Moore would have had a phone in his shoe, wouldn't he have been much closer to an impersonation of Maxwell Smart than the famous 007? Did the reviewers say "This is not Bond anymore" when Moonraker hit the screens?

Back to the movie: well, there's two points of criticism. First, it's the shaky camera. A bit too shaky. Secondly, if one did not watch Casino Royale then it could be a bit difficult to understand.

The concept of the series has changed too: There's no gigantic super laser orbiting in space or some kind of devious earthquake machine. No megalomaniac superevil genius watching the world burn from the loneliness of his stronghold.

The evil comes slowly, and in this movie it's just a tip of an iceberg Bond discovers. A networking evil, impersonated by people, which are dangerous because they're intelligent, ruthless, able, not alone and not even accounted for by MI6.

Future installments certainly will reveal more of all this, gradually. But now, starting with Casino Royale, continued in Quantum of Solace, the viewer will witness the development and evolution, and this for me is the reason why i like the movies better than a lot of Bond movies before them --- they're connected with each other, like chapters in a book, not monolithic.

Or better: It's the story of Bond (and Felix Leiter and M), not the story of "How Bond defeated the man with the golden gun who actually hired a bunch of sumo-wrestlers to help him rule the world... no really, he did!". Sounds promising to me.

And maybe as a "Quantum of Solace" to pre-Craig Bond lovers:

There's no indication, that there won't ever be some kind of evil genius with a super laser, nor is there any indication that Bond won't use any gadgets whatsoever again. Maybe he's going to, maybe not, maybe even some kind of Q comes back. And maybe in the next installment Bond will order his Martini shaken, not stirred. And maybe he works on his humour.

But then, the viewers know why.
8/10
Bond rebourne
Rutger-1117 November 2008
There are a lot of real Bond-fans complaining about this film. All the clichés seem to be missing! You know them, join me! "Bond, James Bond", "Shaken not *yawn*...". Quantum of Solace is unlike the classic Bond films, it goes step further then Casino Royale which was already changing things. It has a lot of the reality of the Jason Bourne series and the film is the better for it.

I've seen the old Bond movies with good old Sean Connory recently, and was severely disappointed. Those movies are crap from my point of view. They lack any sense of realism and although that might have some charm, the stories become a bit like a children's books. Shallow, simplistic.

In this film however, we get to see the two sides of being a top spy. It reminded me of the two sides of being an airliner pilot: You get to go to beautiful places, you hang out with beautiful girls, but everything is short-term. And in Bond's case, rather brutal. When people die in this film, you notice. There is almost zero cannon fodder. Fights are dirty and killing anyone is a big deal.

The story itself is the weakest side, it had a lot more potential I think. Especially as there were some gray areas in the stance between good and bad which could have been elaborated to give the film more depth. All in all though, you should see this film.
6/10
James Bourne: The Bourne Solace
AlcatrazNvaDies116 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There is no doubt that Daniel Craig is a great Bond. I mean wow there is just something about him that just blows you away. But to make a great Bond movie you can't just have a good Bond. You need to have the nice cars, gadgets (and it doesn't have to be like a watch that has a laser in it, keep it semi-realistic) and you need supporting characters.

The thought of the Quantum reminds me of SPECTRE but now with a more scary feel. You don't know who they are or how well they are connected. Its a very good idea but the movie barely touches it, much the same way that SPECTRE was through Dr No, From Russia with Love, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever. However right now it is too vague, there are just a few faces with no real plot to them.

With Quantum of Solace, the title sequence is quite bad, the song is horrible, the action scenes failed in that you can't follow them, it made me feel sick. M has become WAY TOO serious and it seems to be her v. Bond. There is no Moneypenny again, instead being replaced by a guy (Tanner, my guess the same guy from Goldeneye) who seems to be attached to M's hip. The Aston Martin is in for a total of 5 minutes. He never says "Bond, James Bond". He is back to the less effective Walther PPK again. The villain is more funny than he is scary.

Basically this movie is a Jason Bourne movie, just give him a British accent, make him work for MI6 and have some kinda style and its a new version of Bourne. I like it but I was very very let down by the film. I only hope that the next one picks up the pieces. Well see.
8/10
Quite a good action flick.
TraustiB2 December 2008
Quantum Of Solace

Emerging from the shadow of Casino Royale comes this little story. Its gritty, brutal, fast and action packed. But does it live up to the hype? The action fan in my is jumping up and down with joy, but the Bond fan in me is crying. What this movie is ultimately about is:

Revenge.

You see Mr. James Bond take out people, bikes, cars, boats, planes, houses, dozen armed men, hotels and governments with a pistol and his left thumb. It's just crazy. One of my favorite scenes in the entire movie is when Bond is introduced to the bike for the first time. He uses his fist more then ever, he barely fires his weapon. It's up close and personal for this one. The camera is fast, over edited and shaky. For the most part it serves it's purpose of giving you the feeling of speed and anger. But it can derail the experience. The action sequences are with the lack of a better word: astounding. Yes it's a shaky cam, yes you can barely see whats going on but when you do it's adrenaline galore. Those many cases where the camera is mounted to the falling catwalks or props you just feel how much that fall down that floor hurt.

The story is complex, strangely portrayed and you get the feeling they rushed to tell you just so they can continue with the action. Bond rarely makes a joke, but for me, the action tells the jokes and the story. A lot of what Bond does is both funny and intriguing, although I felt Bond was missing his "Gentleman" stature that I had come to love with Sean Connery. The ladies man was gone. M (Judi Dench) delivers, of course, once more the most important role of being Bonds "mother". The villains on the other hand are quite bleak, not very ruthless like they were supposed to be, and ultimately not very interesting. Olga Kurylenko gives a decent performance but Gemma Arterton is quite pointless and could well be skipped entirely.

Now that we got that over with I must say I liked it. A lot. It's just my type of a movie. To anyone who's ever watched a Bond film, especially Casino Royale, you need to see this film.
7/10
A sequel to Casino Royale
tmaranhao22 December 2014
Undoubtedly, this film was just continuing off of Casino Royale by getting revenge for what happened. BUT, this was necessary to make. Daniel Craig's Bond is just starting out as 007 and there is a lot going on that changes the character into the Bond we know and love. I feel that this movie makes you really feel for him because you understand why he acts like he does. Now, I was a little mad watching it because this is not a Bond movie at all, but I realized that it wouldn't make sense if it was. This is the turning point for him. We have the idea of a Bond film in our brains and I can see why some people would be upset after watching the film, but just be understanding of the context of this movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
My name is Bourne, James Bourne...
rtatpld14 November 2008
As an avid Bond film fan, my expectation was high for this film after seeing Casino Royale. Quantum was a disappointment.

Imagine yourself going to see a new Bond film and not hearing the "Bond" theme, seeing no clever "gadgetry", and having a Bond villain that is no more menacing than the average dentist! This is he first Bond film where I didn't feel drawn in from the onset and I eventually lost interest with the preposterous plot.

Craig is still a great Bond but pairing him up with the Bond girls in this film was a mistake. There is no chemistry between them.

Much has been commented about the Bourne style of choppy sequence filming. Let's hope that is not a trend with future Bond films as it is very annoying and makes the situation hard to follow.

The film overall has the look and feel of the Bourn series. Reolace Craig with Damon and it is James Bourne, without the martini..

Bring back the Bond films as we have known and loved...Cool villains, cool music, cool Bond babes (like Onnatop), cool cars and cool plots...
7/10
A Quantum of Action
the-color-grey9 November 2008
It's entirely forgivable to confuse the first minute of Quantum of Solace for a car commercial. Fast cuts between obscure closeups of an Austin Martin and an Italian arch fronted road are the prime elements of a picturesque advert. You're assumption that it is in fact the start of the movie is verified once bullets start piercing and wheels begin squealing.

Daniel Craig returns as (the best) James Bond in this Casino Royale followup. Like in its forerunner Craig plays a gritty emotionally unsound Bond and a non-superman. This is evident as you see him physically struggle in chase scenes. Ukrainian model Olga Kurylenko takes the role of the main, handgun equipped, Bond girl who ultimately becomes James' ethical counterbalance. Mathieu Amalric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) performs solidly as the chief antagonist.

The film ends up putting too much emphasis on its action, a fault of an absent romantic presence à la Casino Royale. Convulsive cuts, haste enough to make your eyes bleed, are apparently a modern trend in action movies. That and the obligatory rooftop chase sequence reminiscent of The Bourne Ultimatum, though the scuffle on scaffolding did thrill.

South American scenery was used for most of the movie's backdrop—something few films are doing. It also served as the stage for government corruption, which I imagine is to be explored further in subsequent films.

Quantum of Solace expects its audience to be familiar with its predecessor, so if Casino Royale is stored in your vague memory lobe I suggest reading a plot summary. Otherwise you might be just as confused with the film's plot and characters as your are with its title.

Although Bond tries to achieve a quantity of solace in the midst of world deprivation, the movie's other theme is one of hackneyed vengeance. Your primary satisfaction will beget from its action and the demeanor of Craig's Bond. It is a suitable addition to the revamped series, but the loss of key aspects that made the first so great make Quantum of Solace a lesser film.
8/10
Yes, Daniel Craig IS James Bond Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some of the reviews are too harsh! No, it's not a perfect film, but following CR was a huge task. This is my opinion:

The BEST:

Daniel Craig: He's still the right choice for Bond. He's cold & hard, and mostly deadly serious. As he should be, he lost someone, remember? - Olga Kurylenko: Sounds & looks like a Latin-girl. Her best role so far, we might see her back in Bond 23...

The plane fight: has a classic feel to it, and not only because of the planes they used. Typical Bond, best action scene in QOS.

The title sequence: better than CR's. Good to see the naked girls back.

The ending: just see it & you know why.

The gunbarrel: at the very end, yes, but it's the classic design people! A bit too fast, though.

The WORST:

The villains: Amalric has scary eyes, but I found him over the top. General Medrano is clichéd & Elvis is there for nothing.

Bradley: not someone for Bond. Most of the action went very fast, but also because some people will now complain even more that Bond = Bourne!

Theme song: not as bad as DAD, but comes close.

8/10, can't wait for the next one.
8/10
If you're a Bond fan, you'll know it's great; if you're not, give it a chance...
myturn2114 February 2011
QoS is the most misunderstood Bond film. Of course, those who hate it will complain about that statement & about my use of the word "misunderstood", but people write Roger Ebert all the time saying he missed the point about films he slagged, like Scooby-Doo or Kick Ass & others that really didn't deserve to get a wide release. They've based their opinions on having watched this film only a single time & dismissing it as a clone of the Bourne series. What they fail to see is a complex story, which is what the Bond series is ultimately supposed to be. What they also fail to see is an excellent performance by Daniel Craig, who returns to the character with conviction; I've been reading Fleming's original novels & the Bond presented in those stories was a cold-blooded, calculating killer. So, maybe Marc Forster borrowed a bit heavily from the fast-cutting, blurry-moving action sequences of Bourne & perhaps we've overdosed on them. However, I found the story to be solidly told; we're talking about a *developing* character here, NOT a continuation of the character that'd become too tongue/cheeky thru the Moore years & had grown obnoxious by the time Die Another Day was released, one of the worst films in the series.
8/10
A good follow-up.
ruki4445 February 2010
The only element that bugged me about this film was in the second sequence in Siena. It struck me as mimicking the free-running seen early in Casino Royale. At least, that's how I saw it. Maybe in reality it was a standard pursuit scene, in which case it was fine, but my radar went off fairly quickly. As some others have commented, Casino Royale set the bar very high. I've enjoyed the Connery series quite a bit while the others seemed much too silly. I couldn't watch more than a couple of Moore's versions and Pierce I didn't bother with at all. The previews were enough. This new series, which seems to make Bond more human and realistic also brings a welcome grittiness to the table and I look forward to more installments.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Daniel Craig!
jackdmster16 March 2019
I give it a ten because of DANIEL CRAIG's performance.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Bond film. Poor screenplay.
woodsie41 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig once again shows why he was the perfect choice for taking Bond to the next generation and level. It's easy to forget what a good actor he is when watching Bond as lets face it Bond films have never been known for their high quality of acting.

Craig makes the role look effortless and takes on the mantle of ruthless killer with extreme ease. His exchanges with Judi Dench in QoS are some of the best pieces of the film and I feel these two really need to be given more dialogue with each other in future films.

From the opening scene you get that thrill of excitement that Bond films should bring. From the seamless sweeping landscape to the intense detail of the first action sequence you get the feeling this could be every bit as good as Casino Royale.

Unfortunately as the opening title sequence played I got the feeling I was going to be disappointed. Both the track and graphics are poor, scrappy and for me in no way connect with the film.

The acting in QoS is, in general, of a high standard apart from Mathieu Amalric who turns in an exceptionally bland performance, how much of this is down to his skills as an actor or how much is down to the script and screenplay in general is difficult to tell. The part of Dominic Greene is incredibly one dimensional and in truth is not needed in the film. Olga Kurylenko is OK in her role as Camille but again I felt that her relationship with Greene and ultimately her own storyline was unnecessary.

After reading pre screening reports that QoS picks up were Casino Royale ended I had hoped that more attention and time would have been given to the hunt for the people behind Vesper's betrayal and ultimately Bonds need for revenge. The "plot" which Greene and Camille are involved in detracts from this mission of revenge and takes an unnecessary shift away from unveiling what the "organization" is exactly and who is behind it. This I feel should have been given more attention in the screenplay.

Which leads me to Neil Purvis' and Robert Wade's screenplay. (I have purposely left out Paul Haggis' name from this as I feel that the best scripted scenes in QoS are probably down to him, but hey I could be wrong). The underlying theme of the screenplay is actually one of intrigue however the writers chose to gloss over it with several unneeded subplots and action scenes.

I feel the screenplay is too fragmented and too many random scenes have been harshly edited together rather than allowing for smooth flow and continuity.

The action sequences are excellently shot and played out and you really do get the feel that Daniel Craig is playing it for real.

There are some beautifully shot scenes with the Tosca sequence not only being the highlight of direction but also a brave and welcome move for a Bond film.

Unlike some I do not feel that direction was an issue and I think that Marc Foster has done a good job in terms of how the film looks.

The locations are excellent and beautifully captured but the score felt tired and dated.

As a Bond film this is a very welcome addition to the collection, as an action film the standard is incredibly high but as piece of writing it leaves a lot to be desired.

One saving point of the storyline however is that, in general, you get the feeling that QoS is setting the scene for what is to come from the next two films.

Barbara Broccoli made a brave but inspired decision when hiring Daniel Craig as James Bond. She now needs to take the decision to relive Purvis and Wade their duties as writers and commission someone who can compliment Haggis's generally decent dialogue and plot writing skills.
6/10
Lames Bond
Poeticartist17 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This just proved to be a disappointment. The entire movie appeared amateur, and completely disregarded the Bond dynamic that has been developed through the course of all these movies. The first problem is with the title. Not only does it sound inane, but it doesn't reoccur once later in the movie the way you would expect it would. It appears to me the only point of this title was so they could use the Os in "of" and "solace" to make 007, and that's a problem. To continue, the opening animations and credits are shoddily composed, both musically and visually. The desert isn't a large enough piece of the movie to warrant the entire opening cinematic, and the whole experience is rather uninteresting, unlike the brilliance we saw in Casino Royale. The music, by Jack White and Alicia Keyes, really isn't right for a Bond movie, and the song just seems stupid. The song, Another Way to Die, has utterly foolish lyrics that just seem to use the word Die for the sake of it being a Bond movie. The opening scene is rather underwhelming; we have come to expect something epic in our opening scenes, and a car chase is completely ordinary.

The rest of the movie is somewhat amusing, and entertaining, but certain problems keep it from being a truly great Bond movie. The Bond wit has completely deserted the movie. We expect Bond to deliver one liners that leave both the characters reeling, and the audience laughing, but there are next to none in "Quantum". Bond should have a tact for speaking that is constantly reappearing much to the chagrin of both enemies and allies. Craig is rough and uncouth, and so when he delivers what should be a classic line it only appears awkward, it evokes little more than a chuckle in the audience, and is forgotten in one second. Craig fails to personify the Bond dynamic several times throughout the movie. One way is that he is constantly beat up. In probably half the scenes he is cut and bleeding, something we have not seen from the other Bonds. Bond should appear invulnerable; although that robs him of his humanity it is something we expect in Bond. He should be able to emerge from a gun fight or a car crash without a scratch on him, and then deliver some classic line. We are not going to get that with Daniel Craig, instead we are going to get Rambo. Along this line, our past Bonds have had a certain control of their trigger fingers, something Craig abandons. Other Bonds have been able to fire one bullet, and leave ten men dead by hitting a gas tank or something of the like. Craig, on the other hand, fires ten bullets and leaves one man dead. The way he handles his weapons, you would think MI6 won free ammunition for a year. Either we are seeing Bond taken in a new direction, or Craig does not possess enough of Bond to play Bond. Either way I'm disappointed.

The Bond girl is also rather unimpressive. Although I hate to lower the evaluation to looks alone, that is what have become the criteria for Bond girls over the years. To me her hair was just too short, and the bangs made her somewhat unattractive. Her character was also just as weak and colorless as her eyes. It evident the writers tried to pull an Eva Green, by giving the character both good looks and personality, but that failed. For only five seconds did Olga have a character, and the character was born out of revenge. Revenge can only last for so long, and when every character is motivated by revenge it loses all meaning, and becomes clichéd. Bond being out for revenge can work very well, but when that is conflicting with another mission, as well as his supporting actresses desire for revenge, everything falls to pieces. If we want to start giving Bond girls character, which we should, we need to give them more than five seconds to develop character, and give them a character that is not being borrowed from Bond. Everything just seems to conflict, instead of run together which gives the movie a rather unharmonious feel. Just one other small thing, where is Moneypenny, was a decision made to eliminate her completely?

The movie wasn't all bad though. The fight scenes, and the chase scenes will leave you captivated, and at the edge of your seat. I also enjoyed the humorous satire of the oil-hungry Americans. The movie was enjoyable to follow, and the two hours really flew by. Craig was just a bad Bond, not a bad actor. He is not unbearable to watch, instead he is rather tolerable, it's just to see the Bond we all love dissolve away that really makes me upset. Judi Dench is also great as M with her strictness and rigidness that will have you laughing with ease. All I hope is that this movie will prove that Bond needs to get back on track. I hate to say this, but it has only been two movies, and I'm ready to replace Craig.Prove your worth, and I'll accept you as Bond. I was impressed after Casino Royale, but now that feeling is as absent as the Bond wit, Moneypenny, and a Bond girl with character. Whatever though, this series has been going for decades and one bad movie won't end it. I'm young, and I've got plenty more Bond movies ahead of me, and I'm sure there will be a few masterpieces in there, along with a few duds. I guess I'm just gonna wait, and hope for a better movie.
5/10
A Quantum of Bond
imdb-nikster10 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The story is pretty good, though I have to admit I had already forgotten some of the characters in Casino Royale. Who was Mr. White again? Mathers?

That's not the issue with the movie though. The main issue is a lack of intelligence and predictability. None of the events in Quantum of Solace were a surprise, except maybe the bad guy's evil plan, which was a "One Million Dollars!!!"-moment worthy of Dr. Evil. You control all the drinking water in Bolivia? That's simply absurd. If you can topple governments, install dictators, and infiltrate the MI6 at the highest levels, surely you can come up with a better evil plan than that.

I like the character development that Bond goes through - it is a quantum of solace, indeed. But for a good, tight film, it's not enough.
8/10
An unfairly criticised work - dark, but excellent.
oneill-1111 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
IMHO, many of the attacks on this film just don't stack up.

Firstly - many have lamented that there were no great gadgets in QoS.

Yes, gadgets are a "Bond tradition". However, this 'tradition' - and the ever-increasing expectation of audiences to be amazed by Q's latest shenanigans - ultimately took the Bond films to some silly places. As far back the Thunderball jet pack, gadgets threatened to cross the line between secret agent and camp superhero.

By the time we got to Die Another Day, technology once considered futuristic was everyday, so writers had to come up with the nutty "invisible Jaguar". (If you wanted to know where the invisible Jaguar was, just listen - a Jaguar XKR makes a lot of noise.) QoS features 'gadgets' of the embedded type that is more realistic in 2008. For example: Bond shoots piccies of bad guys on his mobile phone, which are transmitted and face-matched by MI6, who patch in M and Bond for an update within moments. High tech, realistic, and genuinely useful for an agent who's a little too busy not getting shot to do his own googling.

Secondly – to the complaint that the plot can't be followed, or is confusing/silly etc.

Marc Forster is very visual story teller, so much of the plot is revealed with an image. He doesn't labour points or provide much opportunity for characters to repeat the plot for those who weren't paying attention.

But it is all there, if you watch the screen and listen. Admittedly, sometimes clues are delivered in a blink-and-miss-it fashion, but I guess Forster is assuming that he's making a movie that will be watched at the movies and that they'll actually watch it.

And I can't agree that the evil scheme wasn't 'evil' enough. He was diverting water tables, creating droughts and starving whole populations so that water, could be withheld, controlled and sold by an international crime syndicate, through oppressive murdering (and rapist) dictators. Not evil enough!?! Thirdly – the "everything happened too fast" complaint. I admit that the editing pace of the action sequences can be dizzying, and that this trend in editing needs to be checked. But they are usually short, which means breathing space is given to recover.

The opening car chase has come under particular fire, so let's just break it down.

Fly in over the Lake Garda, Italy, where Casino Royale ended. We approach a distant tunnel. Ominous sound track combines with flashes of guns, bullets, wheels, and the steely eye of Bond. Suddenly with a snap gear change we are in the tunnel. No music, just engines, gun shots and crunching metal. Yes, this section is dizzying and confusing. But I suspect that driving an Aston Martin through a narrow tunnel whilst being shot at, rammed by a truck, and performing a 180 turn at speed, is also.

It is so immediate. We are "in the car", people are getting killed and that our hero is in real danger of dying himself. When was the last time that happened in a Bond film? Exit the tunnel as the chase music starts up and into the quarry. A fast, staccato car chase ends suddenly with the shooting of the last car. The Aston Martin then arrives at the MI6 safe house, smashed and missing a door. The boot is opened, the reason for the deadly chase is revealed, the link to where we left off in Casino Royale is clear. Cue credits.

This whole process takes around 3 minutes and establishes the gritty, dark and vengeful world of QoS perfectly.

Finally – the "he's not Bond, he's too dark, no sense of humour, not enough women" thing.

There is humour throughout this film. "Tosca isn't for everyone". "We're teachers on sabbatical who have just won the lottery." "Can you help me find the stationary?" OK – there's no lines like, "Christmas only comes once a year" – but do we need them? And to the idea that Craig is just too cold and vicious to be Bond… Well, Bond has always been a bit of a bastard, it's just that this one looks like he really can carry out his threats. He is darker because he is recovering from the loss of Vesper, but he is not heartless. Look at the way Craig plays the final scene, particularly his delivery of the line, "it's OK, I know you do." With his face and voice he is walking the perfect line between being absolutely menacing to the Quantum baddie, whilst showing a sympathy for the Canadian agent who, like him, has now been heart-broken thanks to this man.

And that's the thing about QoS, there is a subtlety to it. The story is told visually and Craig can convey, with a look, more than a hundred glib Roger Moore lines could.

It's not a Bond for those who want everything spelt out for them, followed by bonks with firecrackers in the background (literally).

If you want a contemporary Bond film that is, perhaps, true to how Flemming would create Bond in today's world, then try QoS. Remembering that it is a direct sequel to Casino Royale will help your enjoyment.

If you want all gizmos and puns then just watch Die Another Day again, with its invisible cars, ice palaces, power rangers suits and jokes about MoneyPenny sticking cigars in her orifice. You're welcome to it.
7/10
Nice, but miss the old Bond feeling
Virginia-Ms11 December 2008
Look, director, Marc Forster is a talented and skillful director. As are writers, Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis. As is the cast. Al accomplished and professional. They are all doing a great job. And it is for a lot of money with a lot at stake. So, nice job.

Having said all of that, I really miss the flavor of the early Bond movies. And they weren't that way because of a lack of technology. They were that way because the novelist, Ian Flemming, had some pretty good material to give them.

Most can compete with action sequences if they had the money. But wouldn't it be cool to see and feel suspense within a story without relying on expensive action sequences? No matter, all involved did great.

But someone out there - Please bring back a Bond who has to rely on his own wits and not gimmicks to get out of a situation.

Still enjoyed it.
8/10
great movie, but not a great Bond
SnastyZ6 December 2008
Well, this movie was a really good movie. The only thing is, it isn't a great Bond. James Bond was known to be a super-suave government agent who always knew what to do and could always keep himself in control. I have seen all the Bond, and no matter what other people say, this was not one of the best. In this movie, Bond was basically just a cold-blooded killer who "didn't care who he hurt" (Quote from M, played by Judi Dench). This Bond was not a real Bond, because the actual character James Bond did not act like himself. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes were fast and held my interest. Also, the plot was really interesting. This movie is a definite see if you want a fast pace shootout, but if you want to see a true James Bond movie, this should not be your first choice (Goldfinger, Moonraker, or Casino Royale would be better). I gave this MOVIE an eight out of ten. This is because of the action. If I had rated it on how good of a BOND it was, I would give it a 4. It may not be a traditional Bond, but it is still a good movie and a must see.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Quite As Bad As They Say.
thomkitt5 December 2018
I just finished this film, and I still have no idea what it was about.

The plot from what I could make out of it wasn't very good, weak Bond villain, and cliché character motivation, and average dialogue.

However, the film is gritty and intense at times. The action scenes were great, and HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE SEEN BOND ON A BOAT.

As a standalone it isn't horrid, but you could do much better than this.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Disappointment
benjicaunce6 November 2018
After the success of Casino Royale, a brand new director proves to be a poisonous choice for the franchise as Quantum of Solace drops the ball on Daniel Craig's new Bond franchise and destroys fans high hopes for the franchise.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better than expected.
clayton-t28 December 2008
After reading some of the reviews, I was extremely skeptical of this movie. I hate the kind that lazily relies on explosions and car chases to fill space and to trigger the automatic adrenaline rush that mindless viewers seem to crave. However, I thought this movie was a lot more interesting than the stereotypical action flick.

First of all, I agree with those who say the action scenes are jumbled and hard to follow. There is, though, a visceral feel of what a participant might experience in a deadly fight or wild chase. I think the director was trying to subjectively convey a realistic topsy-turvy Bond perspective. Thankfully there are plenty of interesting, quiet, cloak and dagger elements that nicely pace the story along with decently developed connections between the characters.

Secondly, I also agree with those that say that the movie is confusing, but only at first glance. It will be more coherent on DVD where you can replay scenes so nothing is missed. Important events go by fast and the foreign accents make vital pieces of the puzzle difficult to follow. After seeing Quantum a second time I began to appreciate the subtle elements and the parts fell into place.

Thirdly, a strong point of these Daniel Craig Bond movies is that Bond is realistically portrayed as a menacing spy. He's a ruthless, competent killer that would scare the sh$t out of an enemy. When Bond battles he gets beat up and cut up although of course he always wins. The escapes are implausible, but are on the safe side of barely believable. And while he does get the obligatory bedroom scene, he doesn't get to sex everyone with a bra and a line.

Finally, I categorize this primarily as a mystery movie with action elements. When you get to the end you realize that there is a lot more unanswered questions than you thought. Bond seems on the edge of cracking an deadly important and deeply secretive plot that affects the entire world. This is a mystery that befits our favorite "licensed to kill" spy and is worthy of our attention.

Everyone should go and rent the DVD when it comes out. Try to understand all the elements and then see if the movie makes sense. I think Quantum was a worthy successor to the first "new" Bond movie and can't wait to see the next one.
4/10
Alright
bencoops1 February 2019
Quantum of Solace is a massive downgrade in quality from Casino Royale. The plot is dumb and the villian is just plain out bad. Some of the action sequences are entertaining but if your a big Bond fan like me, then you will be thoroughly disappointed. Ultimately it is a pretty forgetable Bond entry.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
To fast.To non Bond thing.
adrian_isfan23 November 2008
Man,seriously,where was the martini?Where were the sexy Bond girls?Where was the car?Where was the super hot Bond chick?Was it Olga?Seriously,she is kind of ugly and to masculine for a Bond girl.I prayed that Eva Green will come back and will illuminate our faces with her natural french beauty.I did not like Olga.I have to admit that Craig has a perfect body,well done structured,and a perfect a*s.Marc Forster ruined it.I wanted the continuation of Casiono Royale to be better.To be super interesting and sexy and Bond.I hope people won't take it very bad because i am a really big fan of the Bond films,especially of Pierce Brosnan.Hope so Daniel Craig will try to do his best to be as good as Pierce,if that's possible.And one more thing.."My name is Bond.James Bond."was not included in this film.And that's a terrible mistake because all Bond films have it.If you do not have it and you dare calling it another film of the Bond series you should be cut open.So see it,and you will see it's all Forester's fault.F**k him !
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing
brittany_anne73114 November 2008
Don't go into this movie thinking it's the same as Casino Royale, with an amazing plot and depth into characters. The movie was all about the action scenes, which is apparently the only thing moviegoers care about these days (speaking in general terms). The plot contained many holes. It introduced characters that were not even used later in the movie. The plot kept jumping from one idea to another, and in all honesty, I can't say what the plot is even about because of this. Don't get me wrong though, the actors performed very well. The action scenes were cool. However, that's the only reason I gave this movie a 4 instead of a 1. I solely blame the director for this horrible and disappointing movie. This isn't a true James Bond film.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
left feeling confused & short changed
Museman19861 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I gave this movie 7 out of 10 on the fact that I am hoping that the 3rd film in the "Daniel Craig as Bond" franchise will prove it worthy of that generous amount.

Throughout the screening I was waiting for some answers to the questions that had been set up in 'Casino Royale', but ended up getting a lot more questions thrown together in a film that, frankly, was trying too much to be Bourne and lacked the same zazz as its predecessor.

I'll admit being confused pretty much until the credits started rolling, with the introduction of Greene and his company, and the seemingly unstoppable, yet unseen, conglomerate known only as 'Quantum'. We jumped very quickly from place to place, encountered agent 'Fields' who was nothing more than a pretty girl with no real relevance to the plot's development, were treated to some very disorientating camera work, (a-la-Bourne), and given a very short time to understand what happened exactly with Mathis.

As I said, my confusion ran pretty much up until the end credits, when you finally realise that this film is not what it set itself up to be in the trailer, (Bond seeks revenge for girl, finds global Eco-terrorist, keys into a large organisation known as Quantum, saves the day). But rather this film is a really short extension of 'Casino Royale' which now sets itself up to give us some answers in the 3rd instalment.

I have nothing bad to say about Craig's Bond, nor do I have any problem with the plot and where it is going, but I will say that it did need to be slightly less Bourne and a little bit more thorough in it's explanation of what the heck was going on. I enjoy having to work stuff out, which is why by the time the credits were rolling and people were leaving the theatre, I was the one explaining what had happened to my two buddies.

However in the interest of Mr and Mrs Joe Public, I feel 'Quantum of Solace' could have been a little bit more punter friendly.

P.S Kudos for the Bond girl 'goldfinger' throwback moment!
7/10
Underrated
franksanchez228 September 2014
I want to start off by saying that this movie was awesome! I am extremely confused as to why so many people seem to dislike this movie, as I think it is the best in the Daniel Craig Bond series (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall). I was not previously a Bond fan, so I haven't seen any of the older Bond films (although I tried watching one of the Pierce Brosnan movies and got bored). Critics are upset because there is too much action in the movie and it portrays Bond as an action hero. That doesn't make sense to me. James Bond IS AN ACTION HERO! The name Bond is synonymus with action. Not only was the movie action packed, but it had a clear and consistent plot throughout that was unique and meaningful. Casino Royale and Skyfall both dealt with terrorism which, at least in Skyfall was somewhat repetitious since it isn't anything new, whereas Quantum deals with some terrorism, but many dictatorships and political schemes to gain land and profit. These elements were incorporated into the plot in a way that made it very realistic and believable. The villains were focused on large world-affecting schemes, which made it believable, unlike Skyfall where the villain not only showed up halfway through but his life goal was to get revenge on his former boss even though he probably could have aimed for world domination or something a little more larger scale (also I wasn't particularly impressed by Bardem's performance). Even Casino Royale, which I thought was great btw, was somewhat forced with so many scenes that could almost work as stand alone films. Here the climax was clear and rewarding. In Casino there were around 3 or 4 climaxes dispersed throughout the movie, and in Skyfall the climax was tremendously underwhelming.

People seem to think that this Bond has become a rip-off of Jason Bourne. The only real similarities are the fight scenes. I have always thought of Bond as the government backed version of Bourne, and even Casino had similar action to the Bourne saga. Any good film will borrow elements from other films once in a while.

Another thing that people don't seem to understand is that this is a DIRECT CONTINUATION of Casino Royale. It is a SEQUEL not meant to be a stand alone movie, they go hand in hand. Casino and Quantum are equivalent to Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 or Matrix Reloaded & revolutions. Some plot points in this movie are dependent on Casino, which is fine, there is nothing wrong with back-to-back sequels.

My Film Studies teacher believes that Skyfall is much better because of subtle film techniques of parallelism and color schemes. He says Quantum doesn't have that. To me what matters more is whether or not the film is entertaining and meaningful. I wouldn't have even noticed the color schemes if he didn't point it out. If you agree with me on that then you will love this movie. I thought it was fantastic.
6/10
Exactly what I expected for a sequel...
channibal229 November 2008
Firstly, I went into this movie with an open mind, and not with high expectations, I mean there was no way that it could surpass Casino Royale, could it? I'm a fairly big Bond fan, and always enjoy watching them when they come out at the cinema or whenever they're on. From watching the reviews and preview shows on TV, I was actually quite excited to hear that there would be no gadgets and the 'cheesey' one liners that you could usually expect in a Bond film ('I'm here for the birds' and 'Buy me a pint!' from Die another Day and Goldeneye are the freshest ones in my mind) This I thought, would hopefully be refreshing and maybe take Bond into a different new and exciting direction.

As soon as the film started with an action packed car chase, I was sucked in, thinking this looks like its going to be brilliant..but I was wrong. Now, i'm no camera expert, I don't know anything about how a film is shot, nor would I know how to make a action sequence any good. But i have to say, the all the action scenes were done terribly in my opinion. Its not that they weren't exciting or boring, its just that I actually felt like my head was spinning watching them, i mean during the car chase, the chase over the rooftops, the boat scene; the camera seemed to shaking all over the place. It was difficult to focus on what was happening, and was zoomed in a bit to close for my liking, which I know sounds strange. Its just that I remember in Casino Royale for example, the chase around the construction site, it was shot so smoothly and was actually breathtaking in parts. Even Brosnan's ice chase scene in DAD was more enjoyable to watch. Sure, its was supposed to be like that right? Bond's grittier, angrier and out for revenge, so lets show it in that style, but it was just plain annoying, because they could have been great scenes, especially the boat chase, which again annoyed me because I couldn't see what was going on! Don't get me wrong, I thought all the people who said Cloverfield was bad because of the shaky camera, were idiots, but that was actually supposed to shot like the guy was holding a video camera!!! Anyway enough of that rant. The story I thought was pretty good, even though I only understood the plot fully about half way through the film, it was entertaining and again what I expected for a follow up storyline. At times it seemed pointless, and could have been explained a bit better, but I didn't mind, most Bond films are usually a bit perplexing. The acting was again very good from Craig, and the bond girls were delightful to look at. I thought Olga Kurylenko did a nice job as playing the woman scarred (no pun intended) and out for revenge. Dame Judi Dench was also in top form as M again, and the chemistry between her and Craig was funny and a pleasure to watch. Greene, the villain, was mediocre, but quite interesting to watch, his character was a slimy and a pathetic man, which made me both love and hate him. I'd also like to point out that the locations and the score used for the film were super, and were chosen well. To conclude, I thought Quantum of Solace was a very good addition to the bond franchise, it was a step in a new direction, but i don't think it totally paid off. I was hugely let down by the action sequences, and if they had been done better, i would have given the film a healthy 7.5/10. As i've said the story and acting were above average, and the end scene at the hotel was gripping at parts. But I when I left the cinema, I just felt that the film was very 'filler' material, and went completely over my head. It was almost like i'd just gone to see a decent action film, which was OK, but didn't really have an impact on me like the other bond films. However, as I keep saying..its what i expected really! I think if I went to see it a second time, i'd probably enjoy it more. Definitely worth going to see though!! I mean....it is James Bond ;)
7/10
A transitional film
inferno_drummer30001 December 2009
Having recently watched many of the old Bond films, i remembered some of the characteristics that make Bond, Bond. In Casino Royale, i thought Daniel Craig was fantastic and it was an amazing re-imagining of Bond. Quantum of Solace, is a great great film but lacks so much 'Bond-esque' things. The main aspect of the film is about revenge and Bond going on a revenge journey from the death of his lover in Casino Royale. I have no problem with this story, but i just didn't believe that Bond would do this, but also don't believe that Daniel Craig can portray a ruthless bond when it comes to the women.

That is why i would give this film 7/10. Great film, good story, good acting. But their were just parts i didn't believe. But i think this could be a transitional film, as we are learning why Bond has become who he is. Im sure the next will please die hard Bond fans more.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Anger Management
funzo33310 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The epitome of gadget flashing, women seducing, bad guy busting masculinity is back, in Marc Forster's latest installment in the 007 saga. But this time it's different. Daniel Craig returns as James Bond (and we can expect him in at least three more) in the first ever sequel to a previous Bond film. He is still mentally reeling from the loss of his love who died in a death worthy of a Bond film as she drowned in an elevator as a building collapsed into the sea at the end of Casino Royale. And it shows. In the darkest, deepest, and most personal (and most expensive) James Bond film in history, we get an insight into a battered and tormented 007; and get taken on a journey that bring him across the globe as a rogue agent looking to avenge Vesper's death and while stopping the world from ending once again.

In this film, Bond's foe is the organization QUANTUM and 'environmentalist' Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who plays the part of man who is working with the CIA to stage a coup in Bolivia to restore its previous dictator in effort to gain control of a plot of land. Through this story line, Forster and the producers (Barbara Broccoli, Callum McDougall, and Brian Miller) bring Bond into a presently pertinent political battle, to the lengths of which Bond has never done before. We are introduced to a CIA that backs this genocide in hopes of obtaining oil. We see a Bolivian government privatizing the country's water, and in essence killing its own country in favor of big business. These are issues that cause this film to be more reflexive than the normal Bond films. It is not a happy-go-lucky romp like we got too used to in the hair mouse Brosnan era, but rather a gritty look at how does one deal with revenge, and how can that control our lives.

Craig seems to be tipping off of the deep end right from the start. He kills more people and more brutally than any Bond before him. We see this right from the get-go when we see him chase an MI6 mole down and end his life in an acrobatic finale which had them flying off rafters and through plate glass, to the subsequent scene in an apartment when he slices and kills a would be assassin for his beautiful counterpart Camille (played by the lovely Olga Kurylenko), to the end of the film where he sends Greene off into the dessert with a gunshot wound and a canister of oil to serve as his own little cyanide pill. M (played by a film saving, stone cold Judy Dench) even attempts to stop her prodigy child by stripping him of everything and attempting to bring him into custody. Bond, being the tunnel-visioned rogue that he is, escapes custody, and confronts M again, and it is in this moment that we understand what the film is really trying to tell us. M lets him go, but expresses that she can not and will not help him. We see that there are some things that can not be completed within the system. The world and people who control it are so corrupt at every level (remember the slimy CIA and the traitor in MI6) that to get true justice (vengeance and peace) it must be done alone, and with the world biting at your heels. Dark Knight anyone? The tormented hero is not something that is new to us. Perhaps a sign of the changing layman, who desires a hero not from the fables of yesterday, but from the minds of a today. Someone who could fit in a Bush/Darfur/Global Warming age, and who would be willing to go against the untouchable powers that be, in pursuit of justice.

The Bond girls in this film are different too. The cold Camille parts with 007 in the end of the film with not more than a kiss; which seems more like a peck of release, than of one stemming from any sexual tension at all. The only love making we see in the film at all is when Bond beds Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton) in an action that seemed coldly doomed from when they first met earlier that day. Subsequently, the completely innocent Fields ends up drowned in oil (in respectful homage to Goldfinger) and stifles any fun or lighthearted sexuality that we may have thought may have been able to slip in. Quantum brings sex and violence into one for Bond. Both are primary drives for him, and when the most powerful sexual pull of his life (Vesper) is killed off, Bond swings to the other side of the see-saw and is motivated and driven by violence and aggression.

Quantum of Solace doesn't bring the smoothness and comfort that we come to expect from Bonds, but maybe it's not supposed to. Maybe this is the grittier side of Bond that will make him real from now on. He will probably slide somewhat back into his suave and free-flowing ways of before, but now he's a real man. A man who can be affected and is driven by the evils of a modern era. A man who is no longer a superhero of the past, but a real live hero who can change things today.
I wanted to like it.
tiki76903 December 2012
Quantum of Solace is one of those painfully disappointing movies. I just recently purchased Casino Royale and watched it for the second time in my life, the first time being a while ago. I absolutely loved it, and I wanted to love this movie just as much, but I can tell you that I probably won't be buying this one. I might if it's on sale really cheap or something.

That's sad, because it really could've been as good, or even better, than Casino Royale. Bond gone berserk on a revenge journey against an enormous criminal corporation: sounds incredible, right? Well... it isn't.

The direction was terrible. It was in the style of a Jason Bourne film: super-quick cuts of action that are more hectic than exciting. In fact, this really felt like a Jason Bourne film throughout; not James Bond.

There is definitely some good. The movie is emotionally resonant, and the climax is pretty thrilling; the ending is good, too. It's just not particularly memorable, and not particularly good. I've got to say, I was really disappointed, but hey, at least I've still got Casino Royal.

Now it's time to see Skyfall. Let's restore faith.
7/10
Has the best single Bond scene of all time
kassolson16 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For the most part, thought this was a good Bond film by recent standards, but numerous mistakes by the Director/Editor hurt the film.

For instance- what was M doing in the last scene? The fact she should not have been there in the first place made it unreal. And Mr. White escapes? And where do they land in the parachute jump- the place that is the key to much of his enemy's plans? And what Bond does to Mr. Greene in the end doesn't leave margin for error? That said- this movie does have the best start to any Bond film, AND that short elevator scene with the MI6 Agents- that is the best of the best for Bond scenes ever- it shows just how good Bond is compared to even M's trusted other Agents- best of the best by a long shot.

Music was good, as was the supporting cast- but could've been a much better effort by those behind the controls.
6/10
A rather good bond movie
black_snake1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just came out of the showing of Quantum of Solace and I thought, in terms of Bond movies it wasn't the best and i can see how people can relate it to the borne movies but i thought it was OK. the fight scenes were excellent and so were bonds little quips but they need to bring back the classic gun barrel sequence at the beginning, not end! On bad notes: The beginning scene sucked as there were too many camera shots and you couldn't tell what was going on. The title sequence could have been better as well.

The better notes: good relations to Casino Royale. A different bond is not always bad!. Overall, i give this a 6/10. Not the best bond movie but not the worst. Danil Craig is the new bond by my terms. BRING ON BOND 23!
9/10
Well Done Marc Forster - This Is The Quintessential Bond
lindamcevoysolicitors24 November 2008
I expected to hate this movie given the mixed reviews. I can't believe after having seen it that the angle the filmmakers took went right over the heads of many viewers and critics. This is a Bond deliberately pared back and is simply splendid, and a brave one.

The gadgets and cringey UK flag flying have been stripped away, and Craig shines brilliantly in the leading role. He is mesmerizing on screen and carries the audience with him all the way. We finally understand what that License to Kill was all about, and what motivates him.

This is one of the best Bond movies I have ever seen and I can't wait to see it again.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
disappointed!!Not good as the first one!
edmonddantes181516 November 2008
shame, that such a expensive movie and not good enough for a James Bond film. not clear enough story of the movie, very different roll for James Bond, not saying the most favorite sentence of the James bond movie for the first time!! you know what i mean: "The name is Bond, JamesBond" and a very very poor ending of the movie. the first one"casino royal"was surprising a great, but this one..... for a James Bond film... 6/10 Omid...Holland p.s. for IMDb: why its minimum linen length is 10?? 10 lines!! 10 lines!! 10 lines!! i just have to write something to complete the 10 lines. every time IMDb show me an error to write more!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best bond movie ever!
steveos69-12 November 2008
I would consider myself a big Bond Fan. Before this movie came out I bought all of the previous bond films and watched them all in order. I loved most of them and I loved how they reinvented Bond with the new Casino Royal. Quantum of Solace was my most anticipated film ever. After coming out of the cinema I don't think I have ever been so satisfied with a film. It was exactly what I wanted to see from a modern day Bond film and then some. Quantum was perfect in every way. They weren't trying to make "Casino Royal 2 Cruise Control". It was a sequel but it was different in all the right ways. It was more realistic and didn't have as many crazy plot twists. It was what The Bourne Supremacy was to Bourne Identity. I loved those films too and I'm glad they incorporated the same style of action. Why stick to the same tired format that they used for 20 Bond films with a fruity light hearted James Bond. Bond needed a change. They came up with a new concept and it worked. I don't understand some of the critics who say that it didn't have a bond feel to it and there was no Q. Casino Royal didn't have a Q and no one complained about that. The only reason I'm not giving this film 10 stars is because I thought the dialogue could have been better. Besides that, this is my favorite Bond film probably my second favorite film of all time after the Bourne Supremacy which is 10 out of 10 perfection.
8/10
Despite a lot of negative reviews, it remains my most watched Bond film.
andystevenson921 June 2020
This film comes in for a lot of criticism but I find myself watching it whenever it pops up on tv (I actually own it on Blu-ray as well). I think it features the greatest opening 20 minutes or so of any Bond film and the rest of the film is way better than 90% of all the previous non, Daniel Craig Bond films.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Bond
idreamofjinn19 November 2008
I feel that this film missed the mark. Bond had none of the larger then life breaks and stunts which is what sets Bond apart from a run of the mill spy action flick. It also lacked the class and sophistication of the previous Bond films. It appeared to try to do these things but there was either too much action, or not the right kind of directing, which made it seem to me like a television movie soon forgotten. However the previous film did get it, so I don't know if it was the directing or actors. You need to really understand the Bond character to make a Bond film work, no amount of impressive stunts or explosions will make up for it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Give it a chance!
lucammii11 November 2012
People complain the plot is hard to follow. I had seen this movie before Casino Royale because I wasn't aware they were actually related and I had no problem whatsoever in understanding the plot.

People complain the editing of the action sequences made them ill and dizzy. I ask these people "How old are you - 90?" The action scenes are very good and yes you can see some kind of Bourne resemblance but you know what? They actually work better here, in the context of James Bond.

People complain it wasn't much of a Bond movie but, in my humble opinion, I think that was the whole point of replacing Pierce Brosnan and resurrecting the franchise: bring James Bond back for the new millennium. If some classic elements are missing such as the drink reference or his famous lines that is because the modern audience is smarter than that. James Bond is right there next to Titanic, Madonna and Michael Jackson in popular culture. We don't need clichéd reminders of who he is.

No one around here mentioned the cinematography but I found it really great! The harsh lights, the burning sun were fitting and the are something to be remembered.

P.S. Looking retrospectively, I actually loved Quantum of Solace a tad more than Skyfall, recently seen in the cinema.

All in all, i think it deserves a 9 but i will give it a 10, just to balance all the negative scores..
6/10
well
kate-isobel-pemberton1 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
where do i start? they missed out "Bond. James Bond", "shaken, not stirred"

there was no money-penny, Q or explanation of gadgets and MI6 is... different.

i could barely look at the screen during the action shots, which needed to be balanced out with more witty banter and explanations of the plot

the crew need to know that sometimes its OKAY to use clichés, as bond isn't bond without them!

there were WAY too many characters, therefore a lack of depth in the characters.

HOWEVER - Daniel Craig's bond is magnificent and even if he hadn't been such a good actor.. have you seen how blue his eyes are???? worth it purely for that.
8/10
Who's behind them all?
lordofstones17 September 2020
I liked the movie for its simple yet convincing plot. While trying to tie the loose ends from Casino Royale, a few more seem to have been created. Great action and a good story. Worth a watch.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Had to watch it twice to remember seeing it at all!
cliffo-110 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just got done watching QoS for the second time, the first was a few months ago. Truly, I didn't remember any of it except for the building explosion at the end...which doesn't bode well for any movie, much less a Bond movie.

What I do like is the new Bond created with the casting of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. Bond is now a much more complex character and we know a lot more about his dark past and partly what motivates him to do what he does. He seems barely in control of himself and the contrast with Sean Connery from the original films is what really makes the franchise reboot successful or at least have some potential.

That said, I agree with some other comments in that the characters in this film seem to drift in and out of scenes that have nothing or very little to do with advancing the plot. Even Camille, the most significant of the secondary characters really didn't have a whole lot to do with the story other than her quest for vengeance (which could have been more interesting if they played that against Bond's internal conflict some). She mainly piggy backed with Bond to finally kill her arch nemesis the general but didn't do a whole lot to help Bond out otherwise, he would have been better off without her. Felix took a backseat until he gives Bond a short bit of information then we hear nothing about him until he gets promoted.

And maybe it's just me but I'm really tired of amazing computer interfaces that make no sense but are really flashy and apparently have all sorts of amazing gee-whizzery...it just doesn't make the story compelling, the characters don't have to work for the information they need it just falls into their lap. The jumpy action shots make it difficult to determine just exactly what is happening and how Bond makes it out of his predicaments. Finally, don't get me started on the random "fuel cell" powered hotel in the middle of the desert...mummy, how did we get here and why? Who put this hotel here? Fuel cells generate electricity in a "power plant", not by putting random hydrogen tanks all throughout your hotel...oh, except for boringly predictable plot devices and a fiery climax to the movie.

So all in all I didn't hate it, I'll just have forgotten it all over again in 3 months time. I haven't seen "A View to a Kill" in forever but I'll never forget Grace Jones and Max Zorrin's blimp, that was just FUN!
10/10
Best Bond Ever !!!!!!!!!!!! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise ...
alizabi200015 July 2012
Anyone who says that this film is bad or crap or that it does not do justice to the James Bond Genre is an utter ............

I am not going into a lengthy explanation but suffice to say that I didn't bother to watch this film due to some of the appalling reviews it received but how wrong I was. I spoke to a trusted friend who's opinion I respect & he convinced me to watch it. And I'm so glad I did ..

This is a real movie & for the 1st time ever in the Bond Series the movie is not a cliché .. It is just a great movie in it's own right ... Fantastic cast, great action & great cinematography & dare I say it story telling !!!!

Please believe me if you have any taste in movies whatsoever then you must see this movie ... I hope that the next bond is more of the same ...
8/10
Unfairly Hated.....
thatgingerguy8827 March 2009
Quantum Of Solace as we all know is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and not too much of a stand-alone Bond movie. I think this is where the negative reviews start to come in. I have seen this movie twice now, once in the theater, and again just recently upon its DVD release. I have to admit I was a little disappointed after my theater viewing. I had seen Casino Royale, but didn't remember nearly enough of it for Quantum's plot to make any kind of sense to me at the time. I had forgotten specific characters' relevance to the storyline, I had forgotten much of the whole deal with Vesper, so plain and simple it was a big action packed mess the first time I watched it. It was released on DVD, I watched Casino Royale and immediately afterwords put Quantum in the DVD player and I must say, this is how it was meant to be watched.

No it doesn't fix the awkwardly edited action scenes (at least the beginning) and it doesn't fix the lack of all the usual "Bond" dressings we have all come to know and love. But the story is very well executed in this movie once you remember what happened in Royale, and moves along at a frenetic and action packed pace. Bond is out for revenge on the organization that killed Vesper, and the movie evokes that feel from start to finish. Craig is magnificent as Bond (again) and the anger yet sadness and remorse show through and some particularly well done scenes. (The one with Bond and Leiter on the jet comes to mind) Along the way he picks up Bond girl Camille, and she is as tough as any of the Bond girls to date, and holds her own the whole way through the movie. The villain Dominic Greene serves his purpose, but doesn't feel as threatening as Le Chiffre or some other past Bond villains. This movie has guns firing and things blowing up 95% of the time, and the stunt work is impeccable. Some of the editing is a bit to "artsy and frenetic" but the movie settles down about 30 or so minutes in and the sets and action scenes are terrific. Gone are the CGI days with bond kite surfing off an iceberg. Thank God.

I would have loved to see another 20 or so minutes of Quantum, and after my second viewing that is one of my only problems with the movie. The funny quips are still there (listen carefully) and the bad ass Bond from Connery's days is back. When viewed after Casino Royale this movie is terrific and places itself among the top of the Bond franchise.

8/10
7/10
Good action, confusing story
mederjake-117 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
While Quantum wasn't as good as Casino Royale it was still pretty good. It opened with a great car chase scene and had a promising storyline, but then the story got a little confusing. Like when they're explaining how they found a lead on someone by using marked money from Le Chiffe. After that the story kind of goes out the window, i.e. Mr. White hinted that he was in an organization and someone started shooting and Bond chased after that guy and a whole bunch a crap happened and Bond is wanted by a bunch of governments and then it gets uber confusing. Daniel Craig is a good Bond but one of my main problems is that they could have fleshed out the story and put an easy 30 to 45 minutes onto the run time and given more understanding to the audience. Also by making these movies "contemporary" Bond gets the crap beat out of him too many times for my liking and I don't know about anyone else but I miss Q. Not the insane sounding gadgets but Q himself. He could be the tech guy or something like that.
8/10
Very enjoyable sequel - but make sure you see Casino Royale first.
mcairyharse1 November 2008
Nice to see a direct sequel in a Bond film - this one continues the action from Casino Royale and doesn't let up. Good points - Beautifully shot exotic locations - as you'd expect from a Bond film. Action scenes are exciting and not ridiculous as the later Brosnan films were - not too much reliance on CGI. This Bond is developing a sense of humour too, which is welcome. Bad points - Editing is too fast in some action sequences - it's hard to work out what's actually going on in a couple of scenes. Let the camera linger for a couple of seconds to let us catch up please ! If you're planning to see this film I'd recommend re-watching Casino Royale on DVD before you go, just to remind yourself of some of the plot points and characters. This is very much a sequel and doesn't stand alone as every other Bond film in the sequence does, which assumes a certain amount of awareness of previous events. You'll enjoy this more if you see Casino Royale first. Bond fans will not be disappointed.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Quantum of entertainment
pranobg009 November 2008
The James Bond movie is measured to a near impossible benchmark. Literally anything could kill the next installment – too much violence or too little, plot too weak or too abstruse, the lead too stiff or too much swagger, too little that is new or too far from the traditional Bond elements. Thankfully, Quantum of Solace, like Casino Royale and unlike the Brosnan editions, does not look like a directorial tightrope trying to manage all these elements. The story is predictable but taut and watchable. The villains are malicious without being over the top. The women are attractive without being come hither. There are two elements of the movie that I could not help noticing. First, Americans being portrayed as outright villains, which is rare. Second, the Bond girl simply takes his leave and them parting ways somewhat Western-style and not Bond-style. This is a good movie in its own right, and as long as you stop running comparatives in your head in the theater, you will do all right.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The best Bond film I've seen
arcturus92 December 2010
Instead of moralistic adultness ratings, films should come with a difficulty rating. And it's true, this one is rated Hard. I tend to think that 75% of films are too slow-paced, but this one was hard to keep up with. The action scenes especially were impressionistic, giving the sense of the snatches of vision one might actually see in a frantic struggle rather than a strategic view from afar. But that still means it's a film packed with images with never a dull moment.

What's more important is that this is a Bond film with a plot --- not just action sequences and fantastic gadgets, but a genuine spy plot. The pointless trials of Dr. No and the vast underground and undersea empires of Spectre are replaced by an all too believable geopolitical plot to economically and politically subjugate the people of a nation. The populist tone of the film, though it's not nominally about this, seems to imply political support for Evo Morales rather than the plotters of the 2002 Venezuelan coup. Films like this give me real hope that the post-McCarthy era of film making may finally be coming to an end, bringing back an intelligence, relevance, and empathy for the common person.

It is possible to see this as a vengeful Bond, quick to resort to violence. But this is also a Bond who doesn't just do what he's told by higher authority, but pursues what is right at great personal risk. In all the previous films, Bond was a hero only because he happened to be ordered to do so, but here it is a matter of choice.
4/10
poorly executed
pikadillynosepipes13 November 2008
the cutting style of this movie was nauseating, much like transformers. Sometimes the shot cut three times in one second. Sometimes all three shots would be computer generated. To be honest, if you saw Daniel Craig down at a bar, you wouldn't be all like: "OMG i totally have to have sex with that guy". This film should have focused more on the basics: . gadget introductions . gadgets . more oily ladies . more and better cars . perhaps another love interest? . more shots of Daniel Craig with a top off . drug use and alcoholism, as in the books . perhaps a better new martini design for this film would have been petrol and chicken-stock . if the theme song didn't feature Alicia keys, it would be sort of cool but the intro sequence would still suck . perhaps its time Judy dench got it out?

don't get me wrong, i like James bond, but i don't think he was fairly represented in this movie. please contact me if you would like to discuss this, or come to my place for a martini. Lee (+64) 21 176 1969
4/10
a quark of solace
eheintz-114 February 2009
I guess anyone would set a high level of expectations after the casino royale, wouldn't they? so did I. and that usually means disappointment. and it did for me. but then I put my mind over the matter and concluded that q.o.s. might be just a 'b' inbetween the 'a' and 'c'.

casino royale was not an excellent movie, but it was a very good bond one, and a refreshing experience. so now when they sort of know where they are supposed to go to keep the new bond on a sharp edge, they just had to fill the middleground with something. and that is how I see q.o.s. - a journey on a dreamy 'b'road, with a bit of dozing off. but you can't dream and drive. so wake up. get to the 'c' and work it out. we want to see that aston martin again. in a light much less dull, though.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
OMG Wut Was That ??!?!?!
hasan-dolla13 November 2008
I've just came back from QoS and oh my god it was a very stupid film. I saw CR and it was way much better than this rubbish, i don't have anything against Craig but he sucked in this film which is really sad. And what is it with Marc Forster ?! does he call him self a director? the action scenes were boring and the acting is uncool. Olga is so ugly even Gemma looked awful in the film and non-sexy at all. And Craig what happened to u dude ? your a good actor come'on u can do better than this. and Judi i just wanted to kill her because of the bad acting. please Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli do better job in the next film i mean CR was really amazing and a damn good film what happened in QoS ? Ma rating is 3/10 for this film and it doesn't deserve the rating at all.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum of Solace
mastersonchance6 December 2008
As I am sure many of you know I am a huge fan of James Bond movies. This goes without saying. Whenever they come on the TV I have to watch them. I own several of them and I often hold discussions with my friends on which movie is the best. So I was a very happy guy when Casino Royale came out. Who cared if Craig was blonde? Not me. I was happy that it would be a new Bond for new generation. And it was! Was it ever! But Quantum of Solace had me wondering what it was about? I still think it was the best movie to come out this year. As Im sure many of you know. But hey, remember when the Bond girls had really funny names? That doesn't happen anymore. And there are no gadgets. And there is no Q. And there is no opening scene with the gun barrel. And I don't remember hearing the James Bond music. And he doesn't drink martinis. And come to think of it, he never says Bond, James Bond anymore. Although I still think this was the best movie this year, I am pretty certain I wish it was more different. I give it six stars. But my review of other movies was less stars except for Batman, which was a good movie too!! You can believe it. As many of you know I am looking with anticipation to the next James Bond movie. Until then America... thank you for your time.
9/10
Great movie, but not a REAL Bond!
Zpeed31 October 2008
Great action movie, great shots, great locations, high quality production, etc etc. Like always Bond movies are way higher standard than any other movies. Only thing about the movie itself that was annoying is the shaky camera work that seems common nowadays. It was impossible to see who shot/hit who or what was happening. Just that SOMETHING was happening. Happens in most modern movies and that's a bad development.

But the times of Bond have really changed. Not too many high tech gadgets, but a complex good/bad/who can I trust story line with lots of names (where's the dude with the golden teeth and the evil underground base?). Plus really, what was it all about? Not the end of the world, that's for sure.

What I really miss in the last two Bond movies is the cool title song that's already a hit before the the movie comes out. I though the title song was quite dark and the main titles rather simple, compared to some masterpieces they previously had.

Guess I'm going to watch some old Bond movies to get that feeling back. Bond doesn't fall in love. Bond doesn't drink 6 drinks, or gets drunk. And his suit shouldn't get dirty!
5/10
Not a worthy sequel to the amazing Casino Royale.
paulinehenning13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace was such a disappointing sequel and I admit that my expectations where way high. But I don't see why they shouldn't have been when Casino Royale was such an innovative, classy, new type of a James Bond movie. Introducing Daniel Craig as a raw, masculine but still sensitive and more human Bond making the former ones seem like cartoon characters. And finally women could be beautiful and intelligent. It had it all, action, smart storyline, lovely locations, fabulous clothes, romance and humour.

Quantum of Solace has nothing of this. It is a hundred percent action movie with quick cuts, a thin storyline, minimum of intelligence and lack actual conversations.

Daniel makes the movie somewhat interesting and is an excellent Bond even though the director doesn't give him any room to show his potential. Sure it wraps up the first movie and Bonds broken heart(not very elegantly) but it is also all it does.

I do hope that the next James Bond will be better and thank god I have Casino Royale to watch until then..
5/10
Charm_less
jshowse5 April 2009
The effects of the movie are extraordinary and the story has a definite appeal. But as a long- time Bond aficionado, my criticism is that the story, on the whole, has little of the charm that drew so many of us to the earlier Bond movies. In his writings, Ian Fleming invented a Bond that was charming, gallant, stunningly good at what he did. He relished every moment. He left us with with the sense that "good" could be wonderful, warm, sexy, debonair and charming -- and, of course, effective. And above all he had a good time! Daniel Craig is very good and I don't want to demean his efforts. He has steely determination and a sense of "right" that I want to believe in. He carries through with every move. But he lacks the charm that would raise this Bond series above the current stereotype action film. I don't thing this is Daniel Craig's fault. I think he could be perhaps the best Bond since Connery. But he's not there yet. And I really think that's up to the writers. Daniel, you have what it takes. Writers, lighten up!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Its Not Meant To Be a Bond Masterpiece It's A Companion.
halldavidh11 June 2014
I have always been a bond fan since my dad showed me The man with the golden gun at age 3. I went to see this at the cinema when it came out. As a 10 year old kid it had enough action to keep me content. I have seen it numerous times (along with every other bond movie ever made) since it came out on DVD. There has always been something missing from it but I could never tell what.

Recently I watched all the Bond movies again in order and I realised what was wrong with Quantum of Solace. It is not meant for a stand alone bond movie if anything it is Casino Royale part 2. It continues where Casino Royale left off and finishes off the story of Casino Royale. If you haven't seen Casino Royale you wont understand it at all.

It does follow a short story written by Ian Fleming (Author of the Bond Books) but really that's just a side story to bulk the movie up to a feature length running time.

Yes Quantum of Solace does have a bad rating and the main storyline is just awful. The run time is much shorter than the standard Bond movie so just watch it to find out the conclusion to Casino Royale and bear in mind while watching it that its not meant to be spectacular its only there to round off the story of Casino Royale.

By the way my Rating is solely based on the fact that its not a bad movie really I suppose it had a lot to live up to with Casino Royale being such a big hit and it must have been hard to try and round off one storyline in the midst of another. So all I ask is you keep an open mind when watching this and please don't give this movie a bad review if you have never seen Casino Royale.
7/10
Overrated
ClearTadpole22 August 2021
Really hard to watch.

Expressionless. Emotionless.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
OK People get your head out your ass!
jcs01287213 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First I know most of you don't even know that Bond was first a character in Books! Since most of you don't read! So if you know anything about the true character of James Bond You would know he is a darker more cynical person then the movies before Daniel Craigs Version! A lot of people are hating on this movie because he is too Jason Bourne like. No think about it people! Think about the evolution of Bond! He has to metamorphose into the Bond we know! Remember this is a direct reaction to what happened in Casino Royale. As you see him just kick ass and take names but by the end of the film he is forever changed to become the Bond we all love to see. Know we know why he is the way that he is! I bet you will all look at this film differently after the next film is out and hopefully realize his character arc. Bond needed to go through all this to become who he is! He needed to be raw and hurt and not be Bond so he could become Bond! I just can't stand it when people hate on something and don't have any reason to back it up other then to say Oh it sucked! If you don't like thats OK but give real reasons and examples don't just say it sucked! Show that you have a thought in your f'ing head and debate it! This also goes to people that say they love it but can't say why they love as well!
8/10
They say you're judged by the strength of your enemies...
nealmcgrath27 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underrated Bond film.

Perhaps Casino Royale set the bar too high for the public? In any case,i'm confident that at some point,movie fans will soften to Daniel Craig's sophomore effort in the same way they did for On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Rather than Casino Royale's high stakes cat-and-mouse,Quantum is really just a heady, exhilarating race to the bottom.

Virtually every action sequence is on point. I love the thuggish,brutal,menace that Craig brings to the role. I love the fact that this is Bond pursuing a visceral vendetta,whilst lying to everyone (including himself) that he's just doing his duty.

I thought the Mathis subplot was well done too and quite emotional. He was a wily veteran who knew the rules of the game and couldn't resist the thrill of the chase.

I'm still not quite sure what 'hiding' his still warm corpse in a dumpster achieved,however.

Greene wasn't a bad villain either;his awkward,incel-like behaviour,made him somehow more believable than say,No Time To Die's disfigured Safin.

I appreciate what the director was trying to do;by carrying off where Royale left he ended up with a film that was basically the final third spread out over a full length movie.

It might not be traditional Bond but I think it works,and in certain ways it highlights the new qualities that Craig brought to role.
9/10
Quantum of Solace..Not Your Average Bond Film, But Still An Excellent Movie.
snopanther15 November 2008
Okay, okay! I've been web-hopping, looking for the reaction about the latest Bond offering. To tell you the truth, I'm really surprised. I'm a HUGE Bond fan like my father and his father before him and I saw "Quantum of Solace" last night. I really enjoyed it!! I believe it was a good way to close out the story left over from "Casino Royale" and a nice way to set future Bond flicks. People, sometimes you got to think out of the box. So what he doesn't say "Bond, James Bond." at all in this movie. So what the gadgets are limited. The truth is, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery and does a hell of a job playing in the role. I like his rogue attitude. To me the previous Bond films prior to "Die Another Day" was going down the same road the "Batman" sequels went before the extreme makeover. It was turning more into a comic book character that a secret agent. Craig is intense and very believable and pulls it off with what looks like little effort. Judging from the end of the movie, the next Bond movie will be more Bond like, but I did like the detour away from the norm.
8/10
as good as casino royale
bossT27 March 2009
I wish people would come to their senses.This film was not casino royale, it was good in its own right and I feel will be judged as much in years to come.I am glad that Marc Forster had the vision to make his own film and the producers had the courage to give him that freedom.The film like its predecessor was class.The action was blistering and real- if it was bourne-like so what it out-bourned bourne.The opening car chase and roof top fight were amazing with ultra precise choreography.The DOP was also brilliant. These last two films have taken bond to another level.I for one am not surprised by the box-office of these two films. Seriously if we are criticising this film what does it say for films like octopussy,a view to a kill,FYEO etc. we're making them sound like movie gold or are we suffering memory loss.

The mood of quantum is definitely sombre without much levity but I feel it is important for the producers to evolve the films rather than jump straight back to the typical bondian elements-girls,gadgets,quips,Q and Moneypenny;especially if they want to continue the legacy.

If they pursue this current gritty style they can only run so far with it but if there is one thing you can guarantee its that the producers will mix it up thats why the franchise has lasted so long.

As for the bourne comparisons well I think they are very good films too but there is only one Bond-what bourne does with a skoda bond does with an aston martin,a girl and a martini and some bombastic music
5/10
It must be tough presenting an outdated superhero.
thehursts-130 May 2009
This is a beautiful film, well produced, directed and shot all the acting is as it should be. I am a fan of Daniel Craig, I think he makes a great Bond.

All that said though, the film is lackluster, the plot is simply a throwback to a simpler world.

When Bond shot into existence the world was simpler, there was good and bad, you had a job for life and technology would change the world for the better.

Sure Bond is now both good and bad but everyone else is singular in their disposition this still includes a super-baddie. We don't believe in superheroes anymore, so why would we believe in super-baddies? I have no idea how the producers attend to this, the larger than life baddies are so core to the cold war birth of the Bond franchise.

The idea of a bad and greedy corporation may have been shocking in Eisenhower's reign but none of us hold such illusions now and this makes disillusionment impossible and the attempt not at all interesting. Even if the front is suspiciously eco-friendly.

Lastly, the 21st century in the 50s was going to be a futurama paradise where technology would enable mankind to live a care free life. In the 50s, juxtaposing technology as some grand scheme that would rob us of our prosperity, may have been disturbing then but now it is cliché and about as unbelievable to us as the initial premise that technology would set us free.

Where does all this leave Bond? Well with a Quantum of Solace. A fast paced action, extruded through a tired plodding story line. A movie held together by supporting character development who usually come to a wordy death, only given screen time to support Bond's delicate emotional state (which will no doubt push him through the next installment).

I have no idea how the producers bring the franchise to a modern audience, I suspect Quantum of Solace is it and it worries me. You can't throw away the essence of Bond, it simply wouldn't be Bond but I don't think it works anymore either.
8/10
Quantum of Solace is the perfect title
jfreeman6514 November 2008
Let me start off by saying that this film has received a bad rap from the get go. Let's go over the negatives very quickly. Yes, the opening song is God awful. It sounds like two artists that have zero chemistry with each other got together, in a rush, and slapped a song down on a track recorded in the Broccoli family garage. No, Bond does not say his name once in the movie (See title of opening song to Casino Royal for a good enough reason why) and heaven forbid an audience be treated with enough respect to their intelligence to allow that these villains know Bonds name already due to the technology at their disposal. I mean one of the damn coffee tables in this movie lights up and becomes a giant I-phone anyway. There is no sex scene (that the audience can see) nor is there the traditional foreplay and Roger Moore-ish antics of the 80"s (If I'm not mistaken that's one of the reasons the Bond franchise was in trouble in the first place). One negative I will mention now and revisit later is that the gun barrel sequence is at the end of the film (and I think with good reason)

Now for the positives: The Direction. I have read much about Forster and that he doesn't really watch Bond films nor does he care for them. He is even quoted as saying that. This has no doubt worked many Bondians into a frenzy. Let me tell you something, Forster understands the re-boot of this franchise better than you think. He has provided a fast paced action film spliced with artistic shards that complement this film very well i.e. the opera house scene as well as many of the chase scenes. He ties the film in very well to its predecessor and in my opinion leaves us with a very good level of closure to these two films. Bond's final comments in the film to "M" "I never left" gives us, and who ever may helm the next Bond film, the green flag to send Bond out into the wild with the same whit, the same style, and maybe even the same formula that we have been accustomed to in the past. If it's the past you lust for you will not be able to resist one moment that pays homage to one of the great Connery Bond films. I don't want to spoil it for you. You true fans will know it when you see it.

This brings me to the gun barrel sequence. The reason this is placed at the end in my mind symbolizes that Bond is now back to his old self. We have seen how he arrived at his take on life, women, trust, and more importantly Martinis! The gun barrel at the end says welcome back to the Bond you knew fans. Hopefully it will appear at the beginning of the next films.

Craig is superb again as the, dare I say "Bourne" again Bond, and does his job well as a man on a mission. That mission: revenge. The bond ladies are just as hot as always with Camille being far superior in screen time as well as emotional involvement, but Strawberry Fields shows us that side of Bond that many long to see. The side interested in "you know what". Felix Lieter, while having a very small role, serves his purpose and hopefully we will see a meatier role for Jeffrey Wright to sink his teeth into in the future as he is the receiver of good fortune in this Film. The villains do an average job but come off some what; if you'll forgive the word "wussy" (This is a direct quote from my Girlfriend)

In conclusion, this film bridges the gap between the James Bond we are introduced to in Casino Royal and the Bond we were introduced to in Dr. No. This by no means on the same level as Casino Royal but without Forster's film we are left with too many questions unanswered and not a very high Quantum of Solace.
9/10
This is a new James Bond. This is not what being James Bond stood for. But I welcome the change.
nvgamer2 January 2010
Previous James Bond films we saw:- 1. Over the top villains, having no sane logic or reason as to why they are the villains( recollect Tomorrow never dies) 2. Good Action sequences, particularly in DAD, but most seem unrealistic.(recall The boat on road scene from the beginning of World Is not enough) 3. Bad Story in ALL. No bond film had a good story even casino royale, i may be being just a little bit biased. 4. All Bonds seemed pushovers, one punch could kill them.

This bond movie:- 1. An understandable and hateful villain, that wants money and power and does not have enough already. 2. Realistic plot, a great single twist in the story. 3. Intense action scenes, although some still unrealistic at points. 4. Hard Core fight scenes, Bond seems no pushover, punches feel real, blood feels real, deaths look real. 5. For the first time, the first girl Bond sees in the movie, he doesn't start f#####g her at that very instant.

The last part was the most important change as for me. I am a hardcore action fan, action with some important plot, and i was not able to watch any of the bond films due to the reason stated. Thats why i welcomed the change. Bond girls got a new meaning with this movie. Personally, i thought that bond films were not worth the money. Many people watched Bond Films, many no.......most people watched bond films because of the presence of bond girls, and his scenes with them. Thats why bond was called so great, every girl in the script just fell for him, "look how great he is, he gets all the girls". Goddam it, if you want to watch sex scenes, go to a porno house.

But this movie changes all, and everything Bond has ever stood for. The bond girl, both major and minor ones, have something to do in this movie. The story is great, and compared to past films, the rating goes off the chart. Its the first time such a plot is seen in a bond film, a plot that could be called real, involving lots and lots of bureaucrats, army leaders and black gold. Its not exactly jaw dropping, but highly unexpected.

Action scenes are awesome, realistic and awesome again.... Its a great action film, at par with die hard 4. The beginning action scene is one of the best i have ever seen. And its not another mindless action film, and keeps the action restricted and where its required, in other words, keeps you wanting more but satisfies you..

Bond girls......Like i said they have something to do in the movie. Not just another sex toy for the script. They are an integral part of the action and the story...... and no sex scene........ i think that was a spoiler........ Imagine a bond movie with no s scene, thats exactly what this is.

But this movie wont be able to satisfy most of the hardcore previous bond fans because they would remain sex starved, thats why this movie is so negatively rated. But its not bad, its a great movie, superior to Casino Royale in every way. To the action fans: Its a must watch, its a must own, watch it, enjoy it. A great action thriller 9/10. To the bond fan: Watch it if you can, but will be a waste of time for you.........
7/10
Shunned like Ugly Brown
mccolvil8 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's start with the artwork, because the song was miserable and featured none of the trademark tried and true Bond music-making methods. Wait, the artwork is completely revamped too? No way.

It's dark and artistic and Judi Dench's M is the only consistency this movie has with almost any other Bond movie. This story was meant as a conclusion to it's predecessor and thus doesn't really focus on making a "Big" movie. Just like the director didn't go with "Big" music for the intro. In fact, Quantum of Solace is a small movie, quickly began, quickly over. I should note that Fields's death was a complete salute to Goldfinger, so there is one more throwback, if it's really important to the reader to prove me wrong.

I'm sure that you would like to say to me right now that after the superb Casino Royale it's a tragedy that the next Daniel Craig Bond movie didn't improve to the standard of say, The Dark Knight. Well, sure it didn't, but both contain wonderful little puns in the title, and both are the first movies of their respective series's to show a progression in the hero from movie to movie. Damn, isn't that novel. So why did The Dark Knight succeed while Quantum of Solace, uhh, I don't want to say it flopped but I was the only person I talked to that really liked it.

Well The Dark Knight gave glamour and an unreal amount of wickedness in the image of The Joker. He is the most obviously evil villain I can remember in any movie, ever. Quantum of Solace is more human, it isn't so much the battle in the sky of good vs. evil. There's plenty of evil and good on both sides. The problem isn't as straightforward as stop the Joker.

The reason many don't like this type of movie is because we go to the movies to be rewarded for our hard day's work in the form of complete unreality, sort of a economically legitimate/accepted acid trip. Quantum of Solace is no masterwork, but it does what it does well and during these times it will be crucified for it.

Long story short: Music- awful and new style doesn't work Movie- better than you've heard and new style works
6/10
Another good action film again.
matthewberry1020 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't understand why people say that this film was rubbish. I mean come on compared to other films like moonraker, this film is Hollywood gold. The explosive car chase film at the start really set the scene although, as far as I can tell it was utterly pointless it is one of the best action sequences i've ever seen. The film sets in with the chase for more bad guys from Casino Royale. Bond's tech has gone through the roof but Q really needs to get off his backside and incorporate a couple of Gatling guns and rocket launchers into that lovely Aston Martin DBS. I must admit that the car didn't look so lovely after the sequence but sometimes, in a movie, things need to be sacrificed. The equally beautiful Alfa Romeyo added a touch of class but it should have took the same amount of a beating as the DBS. Craig's Bond was brilliant and vaguely reminded me of Roger Moore but he is no Sean Connery. Next, the storyline was good and for once the fight scenes were well choreographed and were realistic which is needed in films like this. When I say realistic, I mean that it took a good few kicks and punches to knock out/kill the bad guy. Also Bond took a few cuts and bruises which added to the authenticity. The ending was explosive and exciting to say the least and well was the classic compound in flames which should feature in a few more films today.

Overall this film was a satisfyingly good watch and deserves more credit than it is given.
8/10
A really good movie
farid9816 November 2008
I was dreading this one a bit after reading all the negative reviews, but I went to see it anyway.

I was not disappointed.

I'm no expert on what Bond should or should not be like. But if Bond means to be ruthlessly focused on your mission, while keeping a level head as things blow up around you, then Craig makes a great Bond.

He has a certain hidden ferocity that's always lurking under the surface, and using it less rather than more makes it all the more powerful.

Don't over-analyze, don't go into the theater with a check-list of what a Bond should or should not do. Just absorb it for what it is, a really good movie that will keep you going till the end.
5/10
What Was Wrong And Was Cool About it !
SouthSideRebirth11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just came back from the cinema ,analyzing the movie in my head on the way back.. I Really Liked Casino Royale and I really really like Daniel Craig and i am certain that there will never ever be a better Bond Girl than Vesper(Eva Green).And as Casino royale was taken directly from a original Ian Fleming story I knew that following QOS will be more like the standard Bond Movies but with a darker tone.I was right(almost) - the action was more well planed that the plot,which was good ,but not better than CR. If your too lazy to read i'll give ya the short version Quantum of Solace was good but i expected more. Now the Long version : I really like the character development of Bond,who now is definitely a different agent - Cold Blooded,Ruthless and Unforgiving,and the cool thing is that he really changes trought the film and becomes a more thinking and balanced 00,who analyzes the situation before pulling the trigger.And Daniel Craig gave a perfect performance ,as always - the Best Bond I Have Ever Seen.I like the theme song it was very cool but i'm disappointed with the title sequence, I had saw this really stylish Coca Cola Zero Zero and i could see the movie starting this way ,but it had a rather boring and simple graphic imaging.And the soundtrack is quite disappointing for me..It's Not bad but it stays way too much of the bond theme song.The same was done with Casino Royale but the film's music really sounded like it has always been in Bond movies and had tracks for almost every character.QOS's soundtrack is nothing special and it really needs to use the bond theme as it sounds and makes a good action scene legendary.Now The Gun Barrel sequence was at the end which is OK ,but there is none at the beginning ,I rally tought there was going to be something like in CR where 007 turns and shoots the bad guy.From there on follows a Fast and pacey action movie which is very cool ,but that bond theme once again is what is the strawberry of the cake that was missing.And Why the hell they didn't play Another way to Die trought the movie it can fit a certain scenes.Now Some People think it's strange that the bond girl (who was very beautiful btw) didn't had sex whit him .But that is understandable as James has just lost the no doubt Love of his life .Now you Probably "what about Agent Fileds?" Well she was more like a one night thing and Bond did her just to get her of her back by seducing her.But he is definitely not ready to commit to a girl emotionally and physically and i don't think James Bond will ever be in love again or at least not so much.Vesper is really something special - smart,beautiful,serious,insecure,brave and with so many layers .Compare her for example to Christmas Jones,who is most certainly the worst bond chick,and you will get the idea.I don't complain too much with the missing gadgets - because some were getting to ridiculous or unrealistic,and some we have today - like the camera-phone and knifes in shoes.They really should put something of gadgets but ones who are realistic and yet high tech because the silencer for the gun doesn't really count as a cool gadget.Basically these were the small details that annoyed me in QOS so small but they can make such a big Difference.As i have learned before little pieces make the big picture BIG and make Bond a Bond,not the next action hero.I think the movies should be Viewed as one and that's a nice way to see them CR and QOS in one day and see the complete transformation of James Bond who now i Think is a real 00.And I hope they will make the next Bond 23 movie a really special flick whit a perfect balance between Plot and Action.
8/10
A search for salvation
santanu-sinha10 November 2008
Saw this last Friday, the first day of release in my country. First of all consider this to be a sequel to "Casino Royale". Not that it's a bad thing, but the experience would be better if you have seen Casino Royale. The story revolves around a Bond who has been mortally wounded in the heart by the betrayal by Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale. He tries to reconcile himself to the fact that she is no more, in the process becoming a reckless (to the verge of being suicidal) and vengeful killing machine. There is indeed a plot, unlike what some of the comments on the message boards would like you too believe. Oh yes, there is action, a lot of it, I might add, as bond travels around the globe fighting a powerful group of terrorists. However, the fight is as much with himself as with the others. The plot only acts as a beacon for bond's search for salvation. A search for a guarantee that the love that he once had was real and not a passionless game played upon him by the beautiful Vesper Lynd. Beyond all the mind numbing (and beautifully shot) action is actually a desperate man trying to get back to touch with reality. How is it comparable to the other bond movies? I don't know, I have seen them all, but I think it's like comparing apples and carrots. It's a good movie, go with an open mind and you will surely like it a lot.
5/10
No more 'James Bond' left.......
Daniel_Seiler8 November 2008
The tendency to cut off all James Bonds' basic attributes (startet in Casino Royal) has almost been completed. At the end, it's no more James Bond but a moderate action film with absolutely no outstanding scenes or actor-performance. exception: the two or three action scenes, although cut much too rapidly to really let the visitor follow the scene. all the things, that made the James Bond films so remarkable (British humor, the best technical gadgets, his superior intellect are eliminated. what a shame. IMHO: James Bond has finally degenerated to a very simple secret service craftsman-agent. Definitely one of the worst James Bond ever. And without having seen Casino Royale some parts won't be understood. really poor compared to the myth of James Bond built up the last almost 45 years.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not Casino Royale but not bad.
praven6631 October 2008
i went into this film after reading a lot of reviews. A lot of these reviews were poor and said that this film lost everything that made bond , bond. I have to disagree with these reviews as although this film wasn't as good as casino royale it was still a great film. the action sequences were amazing and were spread right through the film making this a very fast paced bond film. Despite what some reviews said the humour that people expect from a bond film was still there although Bond is more serious but thats due to events n the last film.

to summarise i think this is one of the best bond films to date with awesome action sequences which will keep you entertained throughout the whole film. My verdict is 8 out of 10
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Constant Rush Of Astounding Action
simon-thome39 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As expected "A Quantum of Solace" was reasonably comparable to its prequel "Casino Royale", featuring Bond in a reinvented way. Not only that Casino Royale showed her majesties agent much more edgy and serious, but also coming up with a new set of enemies and globally operating syndicates that had nothing to do with the classic Spectre Organistation of the Moore and Connery Era. This reinvention of Bond movies and a new modern setting of opponents succeeded overwhelmingly and the reactions to the first Craig-Bond were entirely positive. So much to the past, and whatever you predicted a "Quantum of Solace" to be, it will not be a letdown. It simply cannot be much of a failure since I'm firmly assured that it fulfills nearly every requirement of being an inspiring movie. There is a rush of car-wrecking, nerve-stressing, breathtaking moments that surpass the quality and quantity of every preceding Bond movie. There is a suitable modern setting, and for the most part a remarkably realistic one as well, a beautiful Bond girl and some story twists that will keep you in a constant state of suspicion. The only thing that causes QoS to fall behind its Prequel is far too hectic and short. Unfortunately QoS does not contain much of relaxing moments in which Craig could show his wittiness and charm or where the story-telling could have developed to the full extent. That's a pity for that is virtually all that this movie is lacking. In regard to script and acting there is on the contrary a whole lot of good ideas respectively performances. But as stated above they remain rudimentary. As for an example, the plot had some intriguingly written twists and moments of confusion which were never followed to the end of the movie and partly stayed unresolved. Maybe that was due to an intended cliff-hanger end? I'm not quite sure if that was the true reason, since Casino Royale explained itself thoroughly. As a sardonic remark one could assert that the director Marc Foster expended its entire budget on explosions and fighting scene and was thus not left with any money to pay the cast for a month longer. Well, on balance this movie is thrilling, suspense-packed and Craig outdid himself again but the patent lack of length and time for developing the otherwise well-wrought story cost some points in the rating.

Verdict 7/10.
5/10
Go back to film school!
cmchan88830 November 2008
I went in not expecting to see anything as good as Casino Royale but at least expecting a little bit of pure escapism. This is Bond after all. Instead, I just found myself saying "What just happened?!" over and over again. As many readers have no doubt noted, they decided to go for the shaky supposedly more realistic shots. Enough of this wish-it-had-remained-never-done filming technique already!. This is surely a low point in Bond productions when they stoop to the cutesy but pathetically poor cinematography trend of the day. All it did for me was leave me with a headache and wondering if I shouldn't have opted to watch Bolt with my daughter in the next theatre. Had I not gotten excellent, centre mid-theatre seats, I would probably have been reaching for some gravol. A waste of special effects (since it was impossible to see what actually happened), incredibly poor and corny directing (trying to show simultaneous action sequences didn't work and never does) and basically, a waste of mostly good acting and a very disappointing sequel to Casino Royale. I will be looking closely at the credits next time before I waste time arranging for babysitting and forking out money to see the next Bond movie in the theatre. Who picked this director and cinematographer anyway? Dump him and bring back the pros! This is a Bond movie - not a (felt like a) low-budget cheesy fresh out of film school experiment. If not for Daniel Craig and the classic bond tune (not the dubious title tune), I would have given it 3 stars.
2/10
A sequel to the new James Bond
cokeguy1715 November 2008
This movie continues where the last left off and portrays the same serious Bond that was introduced in Casino Royale. Similar to the last film, Quantum of Solace avoids many of the characteristics that are typical of James Bond titles: a screenplay that is filled with off-side one liners which make the movies more upbeat, and an introduction to Bond's latest technical gadgets from Q, including an exotic car that always packs several hidden features.

The story line doesn't seem as carefully thought out as usual Bond movies and is quite complex and difficult to follow at times. While Quantum of Solace is a decent action movie, its failure to include many of the standard Bond ingredients make the movie a disappointment for dedicated Bond fans, in an attempt to increase the audience by following a more standardized action movie recipe.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good
Mironov32222319 January 2022
Christopher Nolan, like no one else knows how to surprise. I don't really like films about space and discoverers, but this one is one of my favorites!

You know without me how beautifully this film is made, but this is only due to careful preparation. Nolan goes to great lengths to delve into the details for years before making his masterpieces. In this he is inimitable.

For myself, every time, as for the first time, I note new meanings in the picture: it's like a huge collection of the most amazing philosophical works about space and travel in it.

Christopher Nolan, like no one else knows how to surprise. I don't really like films about space and discoverers, but this one is one of my favorites!

You know without me how beautifully this film is made, but this is only due to careful preparation. Nolan goes to great lengths to delve into the details for years before making his masterpieces. In this he is inimitable.

For myself, every time, as for the first time, I note new meanings in the picture: it's like a huge collection of the most amazing philosophical works about space and travel in it.
6/10
Great Action movie, Terrible James Bond movie
George_Brad26 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
While the action in this movie is awesome, especially the scene where the whole building thing blows up in the desert, it's full of awesome stuff like that and the opening car chase is also pretty awesome. It just doesn't feel like a James Bond movie.

The first thing that was wrong with it is the lack of the shooting at the barrel gun and the screen going red in the opening credits, it was in the closing credits but it should be in the opening ones. Although he does drink the classic James Bond martini he doesn't order it so he never delivers the line that makes it so awesome "Shaken not Stirred" speaking of lines never spoken although he says it once at the end of Casino Royale during this movie he never says "Bond, James Bond" these are two of the most iconic lines in any movie and if you're going to see a James Bond movie you expect them.

The Bond girls although he has sex with one of them the other the supposedly main Bond girl he never has sex with, what the hell? James Bond is supposed to get with all of the chicks, not just screw one of them and then leave the other one untouched, it's just weird seeing James Bond spend all this time with this girl and then not screwing her, it doesn't make sense.

When watching Casino Royale I was thinking where are Q and Moneypenny, still wondering. Why can't you just introduce them for gods sake. This movie thanks to a lack of Q also has a lack of those awesome gadgets that we all knew and loved and M had a sort of secretary type person but it was a man, where is Moneypenny? She's not an important character I know but she's been in all of the real James Bond movies.

If you're not a fan of the series this is a fantastic movie for action, however if you are a fan of the series you will hate this movie just like you would have Casino Royale. Just keep waiting a real James Bond movie should be just around the corner.
7/10
Sorry to say "Just so so"
xyjsabc23 December 2008
Actually I am kind of disappointed of this movie. It's no longer a spy movie, but a total action movie. What I can see is just chasing, jumping, crashing and explosion. Although we need such elements to be satisfied by the visual effects, what we do need is something more deep that will last for a long time for us to digest. I have also seen the Casino Royale that is acted by the same actor----the blonde guy. What impressed me most was the actions. Because of those exciting actions I thought it was innovative as I hadn't seen such breath-taking actions in the previous 007 movies. However, When I was watching the Quantum of Solace, I found that the actions in this movie were more or less the same as those in Casino Royale----still exciting, still breath-taking, but no innovation, no fresh feeling any more. I hope the next 007 movie will be much better.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Continues the great work laid down by Casino Royale!!
greasbyboy1 November 2008
After the heady critical and commercial success of Casino it was always going to be a huge mountain to climb to top it and they haven't. However, they have come as near as dam it! It carries on the tone set by Casino perfectly. This is a bond for the real world. I loved and still do love the first 20 Bonds, in varying degrees of course, but something had to change (Die Another Day...invisible frickin car!!!). And I for one am a big fan of the new style.

Bond with a vengeance is a great watch, not since Connery knowingly shot dead and unarmed man in 'DR. NO' has bond been so brutal and cold when taking somebody out and that for me is one of the main reasons that Craig's Bond is so good.

If you enjoyed Casino? There's a huge chance you're going relish this too. If you liked Casino but were missing the old Bond come the credits then this wont convert convince you otherwise. If you disliked Casino then you're not going to enjoy this either. And I for one feel sorry for you if that's the case.

P.S. Initially thought the title song was average but in the context of the opening sequence, really has grown on me.
6/10
Give Bond some cool sneakers
rose-geiss27 September 2021
Graig is a great Bond: give him some cool Sneakers to run in! Watching all stunning stunts he does in leather shoes? Why? Like why?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Just the usual action movie
MagicJack5515 November 2008
First off, let me just say I really like Daniel Craig, I think he's the best James Bond lately. But unfortunately, they don't use him correctly. The movie Quantum Solace doesn't deliver : it's just another action movie, not a James Bond movie. The plot is very weak and there's very little character development.

At least in Royale, James Bond was a little more complex. They tried to make him tormented and imperfect. In Quantum Solace, they continued on that thread, but pushed it too far and made it ridiculous. James Bond is now more like the cop from the 80's who kicks everyone ass and runs away from his barking boss. The plot goes along this line, too. Why didn't they pick Sylvester Stalone while we're at it? If you're expecting explosions, car chases, mindless fighting and pursuits, you won't be disappointed, because that's all there is to this movie.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The action is there but the magic is missing..........
gseths11 November 2008
Finally got to watch it last night. This movie starts with an action scene and continues with more action with little break between them.

Liked the movie as an action film, not as a bond film.

I miss the bond theme guys. i mean you are making a bond movie without the bond theme for the second time in succession. Please don't make that mistake again. It is an integral part of the character for me, i love the moment when it starts building up in anticipation to what brilliance bond is gonna display next. So the theme is a must.

Also, I know that you have to show women as strong and independent, as they are today, but the balance is not right, they also have to fall for his charm. Which should not be assumed (as in this one) , the banter between him and the girl is what makes it more sexual and implied ( as you want to get lower ratings).

So all in all worth a watch , like the way you are going gritty with the emotions , but please don't lose the bond we like.
9/10
Act two of Bond's origin story
russpotterjr28 January 2020
Great. Going in, you have to think of this like Act II of a play that's Bond's origin story. As a self contained movie, not the best, as a conclusion it's a opus. The hero has already fell in love, been betrayed. Bond now will seek to uncover what her motive was for betraying him and who she betrayed him to, all while exacting revenge the way only he can. Casino explored his development as a character, Quantum explores his darker nature and how he as a agent views the world not in black and white, right or wrong, but rather shades of gray. Is he a hero, or a necessary evil, a villain fighting on the side of the Angels. This movie teaches us not only that lesson, but the most important one that it does: The one person Bond might hate most in this world... himself.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
One of the Worst James bond movie
shahraiz-kayani23 August 2018
Daniel Craig performance was below par in fact nothing clicked.The movie had nothing that can amaze audience and villain has to be rated one of the worst we have seen in whole James bond series. The story line was joke and writer was trying his level best to convey audience that it has meaning. The movie never worked because villain character was not strong and was not giving any challenges to the main character. The movie was joke.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond ever!
timwegner17 November 2008
I am a big Bond fan since I was born - and I have to say that this movie was - for me personally - the BEST BOND I have ever seen... the new style of Bond movies that was started with Casino Royale is obviously not appealing to everybody, but for me it works perfectly. This return to down-to-earth espionage, without fancy gadgets and unrealistic villains but with lots of speed, brutality and excitement stands out from the rest of the Bond movies - and I believe this movie perfects it. Moreover, the artistic camera work, the colors of the film sets, the hidden humor in the dialogs, ... everything worked perfectly for me! I truly have to say that this movie is among the best and most entertaining movies I have ever witnessed! After watching it, I was tempted to just turning around and enjoying it another time... but it was already booked out ;-)
3 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Bond like nothing before.. and thats excellent
sunny-creative31 October 2008
The title QoS seemed poetic,suggestive of a search for a drop of comfort in an unforgiving,uncaring world. I went to see the film to know how an action-oriented guy like Bond handles such emotions. Well, he lets his gun loose, like a vigilante. Sure there would be endless comparison to DK, in terms of personal vendetta mixed with justice and Jason Bourne,for the pacy, almost non-stop action, but this Bond is different, more so because he is unapologetic,ice-cold and not bothered by frills. Of course, this robs the movie of some of the hallmarks, like gizmos,the trademark dialogue,the lovable Bond girls..but then, this also makes Bond so very human,and we must remember,Bond does not fly around in capes.

Craig has made an excellent job of the role,and maybe only Sean could have made it better.The coolness of the eye and the soft tone, indicative but never proof that the heart behind might be in tatters..Pierce has very,very tough competition now. Oleg was cool as the tough attractive girl and maybe in future series, the one liner she started could be made a trademark. IMO,the series went too banal previously with Bond being all about getting girls to bed and catching a few villains accidentally...it made a spy look like a,well, Joker. Ian Fleming books, somehow, did not convey that impression. The balance has been tilted too heavily the other way now in the last two movies.

While storyline never being a very strong point in Bond Series movies,I still hope that in the next one(or maybe the one after that), the balance between the charm of Pierce, the cool attitude of Sean and the gritty realism of Craig might be achieved, and I am betting Craig is the best to carry off that lethal combine.
1/10
Worst 007 Movie I've Ever Seen
fakebookor8 April 2021
This movie was very badly filmed.

It was difficult to follow. Cameras shooting all over the place.

Everything flying all over. Can't figure out what the heck is going on.

By far the worst 007 movie I've ever seen, no question about it.

Will never watch another movie made by this director again, that's for sure.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A typical James Bond Film
karanseihra2 March 2012
Quantum of Solace is one of the best James Bond film. Great acting by Daniel Craig as James Bond and by Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes.

After the death of his love Vesper Lynde in CASINO ROYALE and an assassination attempt is made on M, James Bond embarks to stop an environmentalist named Greene from taking over the most valuable resource of a country and also seeks revenge for his love Vesper Lynde. On his mission he finds Camille Montes who is also seeking revenge for the murder of her family. To their surprise they find that their targets are same. Bond and Montes team up to get their target and again save the world from a major hazard.

This is a 106 minutes long movie but this movie does not contain the dialogue: "The name's bond, James Bond."
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Give this a second chance - better the second time around
kmgibbs28 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I first saw this Bond, I was really disappointed. Sure it was a Bond film so worth seeing but it just seemed to be missing something. However I have just re-watched this on Blu-ray with the sound set right and with little expectations, and found myself really enjoying this. From November I thought that Craig was really good in role, continuing his tough gritty Bond (in the mould of Connery in Dr No) but felt his performance was better than the material he was given to work with. However, this is a good story and packed full of information that you need time to process to really enjoy this. With Fields, not wanting to give her name but having red hair, yeah, give yourself time to work out that her first name is....Strawberry! yeah clever. The weaknesses are still there, the film is flat in places where the main Director get hold of the piece and wants to develop the story but forgets that this a Bond film. The second unit Directors nail the action sections, covering up the many of the weak points. All in all, this is a good Bond. A lot better than most but suffers from coming after the best bond film ever. So, give this a second home viewing. You will be surprised how good it is. Also turn the sound up, this is best viewed loud. Last thing, I had to update my blu-ray player to play this. Hope you have a blu-ray player that you can update the firmware, nothing worst than having a film you can't watch!
The best Bond ever!
turetsky-david15 November 2008
No gimmicks, no gadgets, just the best Bond ever!

More nuanced, but no less exciting. A more emotional tapestry with live 3-dimensional characters and beautiful women Bond does not bed, the absence of gimmicks and gadgets turns out to be refreshing and eliminates a sophomoric bent of previous 007 movies. The fight scenes, car chases, and even airplane chases are packed with excitement, the use of technology is subdued, natural and does not distract despite some impressive display technology

The mourning of Bond's lover, Vesper, which provides much of the rationale for Bond's actions in this film seems a bit of a stretch since the foundation laid in the previous film, Casino Royale, did not seem sufficiently developed to justify such a strong focus here, but once taken as a given, this thinness did not distract from the unfolding story

M's role as the head of British Intelligence is expanded beyond earlier 007 films and fits integrally into the story
8/10
An essential part of the new bond character
marcchehab13 November 2015
I don't understand the low rating on this film. To my mind, this is an essential piece in the character development of the new James Bond being created with Daniel Craig. A character with more depth than the old Bonds, a character you can understand. A such, this film adds an essential piece of closure after Casino Royale...

It may be that my hispanophile nature clouds my judgement, but I think there's a good story development for the character. It's true the downside is that the villains' plot is rather incredible (in the bad sense of the word). But for Bond, the series, it is an important piece of the puzzle and makes sense.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Get with the programme
prawleprovi10 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Have any of you actually read Fleming? I was against the casting of Daniel Craig prior to Casino Royale, but felt that he answered his pre-film critics admirably (me included,) he is definitely a Flemingesque Bond. Quantum of Solace answers a few questions posed in Casino Royale, but also allows Craig to put his stamp on Bond. If you want gadgets et al, then watch Spy Kids. With the likes of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass raising the bar in this genre I think the Bond franchise is moving in the right direction. It was an adult themed film that used contemporary issues as a cover for some good old fashioned action. Someone on this board asked if Bond is a superhero. Well why shouldn't he be? I look forward to the next one.
7/10
A Disappointment But Still A Very Good Action Film
Sean_Probert9 November 2008
I enjoyed it a lot but I was setting myself up for a disappointment which it was but at the same time it is still a very entertaining action film as well. I appreciated it for what it was which is why I may have enjoyed it more than some.

The editing is the sole crucial flaw with the film. It was far too rapid in the action scenes that it's hard to concentrate and understand what's happening. If you turn away for one minute you'd look back and find yourself in some other destination fighting some other person in the same fight scene you were watching. To be fair, this applies mostly to the first few fight scenes and it calms down afterwards balancing out to more steady editing but still it is distracting in those that aren't steady.

The problem with the film and what people may say about my review is that there's only the action scenes to really comment on because that's all the film really is action from start to finish which would've been fine but there's one crucial problem - there's no pain! The thing about Casino Royale and other action movies is that at least you feel worried for the characters as they seem in physical pain and you worry about their ability to win a fight but it just doesn't happen in this one. A person is beaten down but they just get back up again without any signs that they may be in a bit of pain (this works in Bond's case especially) Daniel Craig and Judi Dench were very good as per usual. Dench getting more screen time it seemed which was a good thing just left supporting characters with very little to do. Kurylenko was sexy as hell but wasn't in it as much as the other Bond girls and I didn't feel such emotional attachment to her compared to previous ones. Almaric let me down a little but then again this could be put down to limited screen time, I was expecting a more sinister and witty villain but instead got someone who said a few words and gave an evil glare. Again, the lack of screen time for the supporting characters is put down to the film being dominated by explosions, chases and fight scenes.

The plot wasn't as bad as I was expecting as that's what most reviewers had criticised. The theme of revenge worked well throughout and I could really see the characters pain put through by Craig who continues to impress. It was all pretty consistent throughout if I'm to be honest which is why it worked. It wasn't as if there were brilliant moments and not so brilliant moments it just all was good and occasionally very good. Maybe I was expecting something more special to have come from Bond but it's still a highly enjoyable film in it's own right. Moments such as the opera scene were absolute gold with some artsy techniques used to glamour it up which in an action film i wouldn't expect to work but it did here.

To sum up, QOS isn't as bad as people are making out on the message board. It's not as good as CR but then again it isn't a bad replica either, it's just a highly enjoyable action film that maybe had one explosion/fight too many and a director that clearly is a novice in the genre. Keep your expectations low and you'll probably enjoy it more than most which is what I did.

A solid 7/10 but a disappointment nonetheless My # 14 of the year out of 51 films seen.
8/10
A solid action film with not a lot of cliche Bond
ratanakelley14 June 2021
So after some time (2-3 years) I finally watched this. The opening chase was a little flat and poorly edited and filmed along with the other first 2 fights, but after that, it got more interesting.

The action was well done, the cinematography was bad at some times and I thought the whole thing was gonna be action for the first 30 minutes, cause all there was was action and fights. It got more interesting and the idea of the fast Gunbarrel at the end was cool too.

Overall 8.5/10 for a bond film 8/10 for an action film 8/10 for a regular movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good but no Casino Royale.
jc140112 November 2008
Quantum of Solace is one of these films that when you finish watching it, get up, leave the cinema, you wonder what happened. I am not saying that QoS was a bad film, it wasn't. It was one of those James Bond films that didn't leave you full of memories or a lasting feeling.

The film had some truly amazing faced pace fight scenes and some cool tricks but really this is what the film really all had about going for it. When you think of James Bond you think about a secret agent who is cool even under the most dire of circumstances but, in this film you see a man who seems depressed, brooding over the love he lost and who is chasing revenge. The film, I believe didn't truly feel like a James Bond film because there was no real Bond girl.

What I would recommend is that you watch Casino Royale before you see this in the cinema. If you don't there will be some points in the film were you scratch your head.
8/10
Why no Campbell or Fleming
mcnasty8713 November 2008
I don't understand why after the wonderful film that Campbell did the studios couldn't do more to bring him in on the second MOVIE. Now we have this action packed MOVIE that lacks the passion with which it was stated they were going to do in bringing back the Bond films. Forster is not bad director, however the films that he has made in the past do not really translate into the type of man needed for the hyped new Bond film. I suppose i might just be ranting and raving, it could be the fact that there was no Ian Fleming story to fallow. But that begs the question; why didn't they make the first movie with the intention of being able to fallow another Fleming book. I would have rather seen two or three really good new Bond films based on Fleming books, than a long list of bad MOVIES that aren't based on the books.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Flat-out action sequences for a good Bond movie.
soxfan58386 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The names Bond... James Bond! Some people feel that the most famous line in a Bond film weakened this. Critics also said: IT SUCKED! The plot was weak(if there is one). Well, no duh there is a plot. Which Bond movies have had bad plots other than Diamonds Are forever and Die Another Day? Moonraker was pushing it as well. But stupid people hate this movie and say it sucked compared to Casino Royale. Maybe the plot wasn't as good as Casino's and maybe Dominic Greene wasn't as cool as bad ass Le Chiffre, but it is definitely in the top 10 in my Bond movies at #6 or 7, with Casino Royale being #1. So.. stupid people: STOP Criticizing THE MOVIE. Only cool people like this movie. Some of my friends said there was too much action. Yea, maybe in the beginning with the car chase, rooftop chase, stabbing the guy in the hotel room, and the boat chase, but after that it turned into a slid Bond film with a great climax with Bond and Greene
8/10
Great Sequel, Great Action, Not so great storytelling
slackjaw795 December 2008
If you enjoyed the first film in this reboot of the James Bond series, you should love the sequel. The action hits right away, taking place twenty minutes after the end of "Casino Royale" with one of the most exciting car chases I've ever seen. It blows any Bourne chase scene completely out of the water. From there, the action never lets up, but, unfortunately the story stumbles about half way through. The villain of this movie really isn't interesting or threatening enough to keep people entertained. He's just one small part of a greater terrorist organization, which is sure to show up in future Bond movies. The film-makers should have taken the time to develop the villain and make him evil and interesting. That would have pushed this movie into the 9 or 10 star range. The action is what saved the movie. Keep the action up and I'll pay $10 to see the next five Bond movies.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A major step down from Casino Royale
llkayjay15 November 2008
I went to see "Quantum of Solace" with high expectation since I considered "Casino Royale" the best 007 film of them all. And guess what?, I came away sorely disappointed. I know Marc Forster is a great director - I admire many of his films; Finding Neverland, Monster's Ball, The Kite Runner, etc. - however, he should stick to drama, IMHO. This film is full of great action sequences but its method of storytelling just doesn't fit. Watching this film is like watching "Casino Royale" being told in Finding-Neverland style; the characters are developed too slowly, there is no climax, there is no clear explanation of things that just happened, etc. All these things just don't add up for a great action movie for me. Definitely, there will be some critics who'll say this is a great 007 movie for its artistic blah blah blah but can we have some fun or thrill watching an action movie please? I know they have been trying to make a new James Bond more human and I really liked it in "Casino Royale". Daniel Craig character in this film is fine - he shows plenty of emotions. Other characters, especially the villains, however, are so bland that it is almost funny. The continuity seems to be uneven for an action film (probably due to the drama style).

To sum it up, I had more fun watching "Con Air".

PS. Even the always-great Dame couldn't save this film.
8/10
A leaner Bond that doesn't feel like it has to pay tribute every five seconds. Different, but very good.
beezball16 November 2008
I have to say, as some one who owns and has watched all the movies and the same goes for all the books. I really liked quantum of solace. I'll agree that it wasn't quite as good as Casino Royale. It was a very lean movie, giving you only the bare minimum to know what was still going on. And in keeping the Bondisms to a minimum I think was a good idea for the series. I don't hope it stays completely lean like this. But I also want new people like Forster to bring new perspective to an old hero. And for being so different I think it will stand out as either a favorite or as a hated movie. I don't want to always know what James Bond will say or do, and after experiencing as much Bond as possible you start to want to see a new take. It will never be as tongue in cheek as Roger Moore's movies were. Or as Smooth as Connery. But it's a new type of Bond just like every new actor to play him has put him in a new light. I just don't want to put limits on my favorite series of all time, I don't want the writers to have to include bond... James Bond, or that he has to order his martini and have three girls per movie. I love the old Bonds, and I will always watch them often, but I want the news ones to be fresh as well. I'll make my last sentence an example from Ian Fleming himself. He wrote many books with Bond, with quite a few staples, but they were never mandatory, which made their occurrences more special.
7/10
Good but not great
olblueeyes-11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was originally against the appointment of Daniel Craig as 007, but I saw Casino Royale and was happy to admit I was very wrong. He was excellent in that movie, and he is also excellent in Quantum of Solace. In fact, it is Daniel Craig's sterling performance which saves this movie from the realm of mediocrity.

They said they were taking Bond back to basics with Casino Royale, well QoS is almost unrecognisable as a Bond film. We join the movie shortly after the end of CR (no opening gun barrel sequence) with Bond in his Aston, mid chase, with Mr White in the boot. The camera is in full Bourne Identity mode - that is to say it's shakier than recovering alcoholic sat on a washing machine. It's almost unbearably distracting, and that style is present for at least the first 2-3 action set pieces. The pre-credits action should be exciting and make you cheer for Bond, but it does none of that. As the credits started to the opening notes of Another Way To Die, I was left wondering whether this had stolen the crown of "Worst Pre-Credits Scene of the Series" from Live And Let Die.

The Jason Bourne style aside, other problems arose in the guise of the awful villain, so un-imposing he makes Gustav Graves look like Red Grant. You never feel as if he is any threat to Bond and since any action film is only as good as its villain, this is a big issue.

The usually brilliant David Arnold's musical score was also very uninspiring and marks the first time since Eric Serra's tragic GoldenEye score where I have not found a single memorable action cue in the movie. It all felt very bland and there was still not enough usage of the Bond theme. Heaven only knows which fool decided it would be a good idea to insert the Gunbarrel sequence (rolling white dots across the screen, Bond walks on and fires at the camera lens) at the END of the movie. They can argue that this film was a continuation all they want, but this belongs at the start of the film. Also, to my ears it seemed to be the same musical cue of the James Bond Theme used here as was used over the end credits of Casino Royale - were the orchestra demanding overtime or something?! Bad points out of the way, it wasn't all bad and Daniel Craig did rescue the movie, ably assisted by the wonderful Judi Dench and the welcome (if brief) return of Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis. Craig proves once again he was the right choice for Bond and he has a very strong, determined presence, both in the acting and action stakes. The action set pieces did get better as the movie progressed and the one with Bond and Camille flying a plane in particular was well done.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. There was a lot to like - Olga Olga Kurylenko as Camille for one! I would recommend seeing it but be prepared for something of a less "Bond-esque" nature than we've become used to. I lay the blame for this firmly at the doors of the director Marc Forster and producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson - things worked fine with Martin Campbell as director in the last one so I think Forster was a poor choice. He just doesn't seem to "get" what a Bond movie is all about.
6/10
American Hero Bond!!
ricardobazwarey10 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Stop getting Bond wrong" cried Steve Coogan in his Alan Partridge days. After watching Quantum of Solace a good deal of us were in agreement with the former Norich radio presenter. Firstly and utmost importance James Bond drinks Vodka Martinis, shaken not stirred, how much did old Gordon give the Bond set? And do all British agents fly Virgin Airways? If so and your wanting a quick revenge, then the stage is set. And gadgets? Where were the gadgets? Austin Martins have been Bonds car well before Daniel Craig was born, why now does he flounce through the desert in a family Ford? The film itself is good, an adventure fight along that travels very fast. But for me, Bond is cheese, pure British Cheddar, giving him an American Hero role loses that touch. And if I'm to finish as our Quantum hero does, I too wont get the girl.
6/10
Okay, but should have been much better
Skyfall7409 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the huge success of the reboot Casino Royale, can Quantum of Solace live up the the high standards set by Casino Royale, or does it fail to deliver?

-CONTAINS SPOILERS OF QUANTUM OF SOLACE AND CASINO ROYALE-

Daniel Craig returns in his second outing as Bond,in this sequel immediately following the end of Casino Royale.

Release in 2008, Quantum of Solace is a direct continuation of Casino Royale:Bond seeks to avenge the death of Vesper,who died in Casino Royale.

If you haven't seen Casino Royale, you should probably watch that before watching Quantum of Solace to fully understand it, although it is explained in this movie also. It was directed by Marc Forster and stars Daniel Craig,Olga Kurylenko,Judi Dench & Mathieu Amalric.

Seeking revenge for the death of his love, secret agent James Bond sets out to stop an environmentalist from taking control of a country's valuable resource.

Immediately continuing where Casino Royale left off, Bond brings Mr.White to M16 and they interrogate him. Mr.White reveals the Quantum organization to MI6. Seeking to avenge the death of Vesper,Bond attempts to hunt down the Quantum organization.

Characters 2/5 Bond is pretty much Bond. Nothing really new accept he wants to avenge Vesper. Dominic Greene is not a very memorable villain. He is looking for oil. Camille Montes is not a memorable Bond girl at all, she wants revenge, so she helps Bond.

Other than Craig and Dench, no one's performance was very good, maybe with the exception of Olga Kurylenko's. Mathieu Amalric's performance as Dominic Greene was just above average, but he should not have been a Bond villain, but that's weakness in the character, not the actor. Performance 2.5/5 Nothing really stood out accept maybe when Bond left Greene in the desert with a can of motor oil. The pacing of the movie was very slow at times and could have used some more action or story development. The movie seems like it was written as a continuation of Casino Royale,instead of a new movie entirely, but it doesn't seem like it was written by the same writers, even though it was. Action:2/5 I would not recommend this movie.

This movie is barely a Bond film, no memorable villains, no great action scenes,no gadgets,few real Bond elements. It seems like they rushed this movie to quickly get another one out there when they saw how successful Casino Royale was, so they decided to just continue where they left off and write the script as they went.(I don't know for sure that they actually did that, but it seems like it)

Who would like it? The only people who will probably like this movie are the Bond Fanatics. Unless you love the Bond series so much that you must see every one that is released(like me) than maybe you should pass on this one,it's not really worth watching, and it's a horrible Bond film, it's not a horrible movie,there are much worse movies out there, but it's not up to the standards of the Bond series... Pretty much everyone else probably won't like this movie,and probably most of the Bond fans will hate this movie also.

Overall Rating 6/10 This movie probably should have never been made, and I seriously hope that all future Bond movies are a hundred times better than this, because then they will be half as good as Casino Royale was.
7/10
Gold mine for action fans
sseitz-117 November 2008
Before I get too, far, I have to say that this film is a visual delight, and no one will be bored, despite the thin plot and all but non-existent characterization. If you like riding rollercoasters, this is your Bond movie. That's where most of my recommendation comes from.

But I think the time has come to pull the marketing department out of any decisions regarding Bond films. It is clear that demographic research has been factored into too many aspects of the Bond franchise, in particular the title music. Until now, I thought nothing would make my gorge rise faster or harder than the Madonna song from "Die Another Day," but with the hip-hop crap they dumped on "Quantum," they managed it.

On the writing end, one problem is that all the writers involved have only been writers. They know how to follow the formulas with which they are familiar, but they don't seem to know how to give Bond any real depth; a genuine disappointment, given Paul Haggis' script for "Million Dollar Baby." Never mind the obvious ignorance of anything resembling spycraft or more than casual consideration for real-world events as possible stories.

Bond should not be embracing his inner assassin so easily; this sacrifices his humanity and sets distance between the character and the audience. They could be exploring exactly what made this Bond the man he apparently is. Losing Vesper is only part of it. Previous Bonds recognized that killing is a nasty, but sometimes necessary, part of the job. I wonder why the British government hasn't objected to being depicted as having its own hit bureau.

On the whole, these creative talent has some work to do.
6/10
Bond is the new Jack
eresnick14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I felt like I was watching the last season of 24. Bond is told to cease and desist, he doesn't. Bond is doing his job but is labeled the villain while the villains act with impunity. Bond is arrested, he escapes. Might as well watch 24. Plus, the action scenes are way to choppy to follow. What seems to be amazing stunt choreography is ruined with frenetic camera work. This is one movie where the camera work really works against the film. Sine this is a Bond movie and Craig Daniels plays a superb Bond I gave it 6 out of 10. If Bond wasn't involved it would rate a 5 at best. Overall, an OK film but could have been much better.
8/10
Mark Tyne Good Bad Movie Review - James Bond Goes High Tech
msokoloff200214 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mark Tyne Good Bad Movie Review Quantum of Solace www.marktyne.com

Quantum of Solace – JB22 (Marc Forster, 1997, PG-13, 106m) Rating = 8.0 + extra ½ point for keeping the run time to under 2h. Overall Rating = 8.5 Bond = 8.5, Gadgets = 9.0, Sex = 7.0, Car = 8.0, Intrigue = 3.0, Villain = 4.0, Jetsetting = 8.5, Fights = 9.0, Look = 8.5, Song = 7.5, Titles = 8.0, Names = 6.0. Rating by parts: 8.5 + 9.0 + 7.0 + 8.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 8.5 + 9.0 + 8.5 + 7.5 + 8.0 + 6.0 = 87/12 = 7.25 ~= 7.5 "You can't put a price on integrity." Bond Goes High Tech. Daniel Craig Bond Flick. This is the second Daniel Craig Bond flick that really delivers (Casino Royale being the first). Lots of cool chase scenes by foot, motorcycle, motorboat, car, plane. Pretty decent plot, good look, well put together Bond flick. The good: Great opening car chase scene. Daniel Craig is a great new Bond. If they keep making excellent Bond movies starring Craig, he could well become the best Bond # 2, replacing Roger Moore who currently owns that title. Loved to see Bond off the hook and the most excellent new M (Judi Dench) questioning whether she can trust her rogue agent. Both of the Bond women Camille (Olga Kurylenko) and Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arteton) were quite beautiful. Cool neo-psychedelic realization of the opera Tosca. Nice montages of a horse race and a two man chase and an opera juxtaposed with a manhunt chase. There aren't any major points where the movie's pace flags. For a Bond flick, that's nearly a miracle. The bad: How come the bad guys are using a conservation nonprofit as a cover? Doesn't that sound like some sort of right wing conspiracy to make people distrustful of organizations that have the noble goal of trying to preserve our rapidly deteriorating environment. Bah! The intrigue could have had higher stakes and the villain could have been more evil. Hope they nail this in the next Daniel Craig Bond flick. The ugly: Death by oil. Twice! Coincidence? I think not.

See full review at www.marktyne.com

Mark Tyne is the "Joe Bob Briggs" of the Haight Ashbury in San Francisco. Mark is the Producer and Host of Miss American Fido (www.amfido.com) a comedy spoof of American Idol, "open mike" contest to find the worst, best and most average acts ever! (SF Ch29, 1st Mondays 8PM), the Mark Tyne "Ask Anything" Show (SF Ch76, 1st & 3rd Tuesdays 6PM) and Co-Producer of the "Death of Castro Halloween Funeral Procession" 2007 & 2008. Mark Tyne is an entertainment hound, entertainment reviewer & music composer and who lives in the Upper Haight in San Francisco. Contact Mark at marktyne.com & marktyneshow@yahoo.com

####
8/10
Great movie, not usual Bond type but Bourne fans would love it...
shar_gowda843413 November 2008
I loved the start and the end, but i think somewhere in the

middle it goes away from the story line, can cope with it considering that bond had lost his love in the last movie.

Anyway the movie has some amazing chases and action sequences, die-hard Bond fans would be disappointed with no "James Bond Gadgets".

I liked the movie because i think the movie is more realistic without the gadgets, the movie is more mature.

"It is an ACTION THRILLER".

I think Dominic Greene played by Mathieu Amalric is not as good as other actors who have played negative roles in other Bond Movies.

Daniel Craig is certainly better than Pierce Brosnan.
8/10
Not bad, but C.R. was better.
darrenrgold17 November 2008
A million times better then the campy crap that came out with Roger Moore, but not as good as Casino Royale, in my opinion.

The characters are starting to get into their ruts...M starts to sound like Inspector Clouseaus boss in the Pink Panther, etc. Most of the action is decent, with the exception of some juvenile "shake the camera for more effect" moves which made me want to toss my popcorn. The plot...well...it's a bit thin and the disposable characters even thinner, but this IS a bond film after all.

I like the new, darker Bond, but they need to keep the witty one-liners in the scripts or he's no longer Bond. In this one, the only time he drops his super-serious veneer is to have sex with a female who apparently could have been seduced by Mr. Spock on a bad day.

In conclusion: Great film, and I'll buy it with the boxed set when it comes out, but I hope future endeavors follow Casino Royale more closely than this one.
8/10
Your preconceptions have been ripped asunder, now get used to it.
josephafriend17 November 2008
Quantum of Solace

I am a self proclaimed Bond fan. The kind of fan, who on the second hears the very first few notes of the opening theme song is immediately donned a tux, with martini in hand, and PP9 close to my heart, right my under jacket pocket.

However I know the difference between Die Another Day and From Russia with Love. As amazing as Golden Eye was, we all know that Pierce Brosnan's grasp of Bond was loosing hold. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but the later Brosnan films were terrible. And it was with much excitement that Daniel Craig was able to pull off the most realistic Bond ever. As far as quality of movies is concerned, Casino Royal was the best Bond film to date.

I don't care what you say, I've seen Gold Finger a hundred times, and its personally one of my favorite movies, but Casino Royal's cinematic value cant be matched. That is until, Quantum of Solace.

Quantum of Solace is the most beautiful Bond movie ever. And while on first view, I was left wandering why I felt like the last 106 minutes were a trailer for some other movie called Quantum of Solace. It took me some time to figure it out. James Bond is not Roger Moore, he is not Sean Connery, he is definitely not Timothy Dalton, not Pierce Brosnan, and he's not Daniel Craig. James Bond, is Bond and he transcends just one movie.

Casino Royal, and Quantum of Solace did something no other Bond movies had ever done, and Im not talking about continuing story line. Im talking about rationalizing and fantasy and then utterly shattering it.

Bond is human, and then he isn't.

Your preconceptions have been ripped asunder, now get used to it.
6/10
Good entertainment
jacob-herbst-131 October 2008
In short a decent Bond movie, great action throughout the film (and probably Bond's highest kill count ever) does however not compensate for the lack of intrigue and Bond-esquire humour. The Quantum of Solace theme song by Jack White and Alicia Keys was a bit of a disappointment for me personally and the movie soundtrack wasn't great either. A few more classic Bond-notes wouldn't have been OK in my book. The best part of the movie was the Opera scene with some cool actual spy-work by James accompagnied by massive Puccini music.

Craig's performance is solid and the edgy relationship between Bond and M (Judi Dench) is what gives the film some character. Camille and Ms Fields are stunning Bond women but little time is spent on building their characters and you end up not caring a lot about any of the new characters.

All-in-all. Great photo, massive action scenes, cool gadgets and Bond/M-dialogue makes it well worth a see.
Absence of Solace
balthazar_bee14 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I believe this is (a) one of the smartest Bond films, (b) one of the most stylistically original Bond films, and most significantly (and this relates to both previous points), (c) possibly the most Flemingesque Bond film.

Points (a) and (b): Prior to seeing the film this evening, reading the criticisms on this website terrified me. I was fully prepared to sit painfully through an incoherent, meandering-yet-abbreviated Bourne-clone. Fortunately, this was not the case. This is a tightly plotted, visually arresting, well acted concussion missile of a film. Things happen at break-neck speed, but nonetheless are executed with a magisterial style and singular wit – the remarkable pre-credits sequence and the Tosca shootout in particular come to mind.

The dialogue – minimally used though it is – also sparkles, and one walks out of the film with a bevy of marvelous thirty-second exchanges still lingering in the mind. While the audience waits for the heroes to begin the inevitable final battle at the desert compound, we're treated to an invaluable piece of Bondian wisdom regarding revenge killings. Certainly a step up from the stern, lecturing voice of Roger Moore in For Your Eyes Only: "Before setting out for revenge, first dig two graves." Not bad, but Bond is no longer didactic or moralizing in the least. And I like him that way.

It certainly is true that the film moves at a good clip. Its brief running time does suggest that director Forster could have spent more time luxuriating in the exotic locales – or examining the milky curves of Ms. Fields' body for that matter – but the snappy transitions (locations stylishly established with appropriately ornate fonts, to boot) and hyper-efficient story-telling (it most certainly does assume you've seen Casino Royale) are part of the film's charm. If you don't hold on, you might not make it. It might just as well be called "Surplus of Chaos".

As for point (c), I'm extremely fond of Casino Royale, and I don't think Quantum of Solace is superior per se, but watching the latter does a better job of replicating the experience of *reading* a classic Bond adventure – which is strange, being an original script. Speaking of which, the friendship with Mathis ranks along side that with Draco in OHMSS, Columbo in For Your Eyes Only, and Leiter in Licence to Kill as one of the most authentic and moving examples of Fleming-style male bonding. It's also nice to see Bond indulge in a bit of troubled binge drinking, possibly for the first time on film. And maybe it's just me, but I think the epilogue screams Fleming, despite the somewhat bizarre presence of M (does she have nothing better to do than follow him around?).

And, indeed, it is the relationship between Craig's Bond and Dench's M that ultimately elevates the film. Don't get me wrong – everything else is marvelous. But the pairing of these two actors is Quantum of Solace's greatest asset. And, to their credit, Forster, Haggis, et al, seem to know it.

In time, I'm sure affection for Quantum of Solace will grow, as it has for all of the Bond films with true longevity, such as On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, and those from the Dalton era. See it twice.
8/10
Many misunderstood this movie.
azerbeh_654 February 2011
Some says that this is a crap. Critics that this movie is awful. But they don't really get the point. The point is that, this movie is part of a reboot. Therefore his genesis in his 007 status. During Moore Era, they criticized the those movies because of it's some comedic acts of the Bond. In Brosnan Era, they reacted that those movies is a gadget presentation. Now, here is the darker Bond and they are criticizing it. And the Aficionados(?), they said that Craig is no Bond because he's only 5"10-5"11 against 6"1-6"2 height of previous Bonds, also an sluggish type. But what's more important is the storyline and the character itself. Forget the looks.

I watched this movie and I found out that it was good but not as good as what Casino Royale did but you cannot understand well the story without having watch the Casino Royale. Craig's Credibility is excellent and that proves that there's far more important than looks, humours, and gadgets. Here, he is always learn his lessons which is an absence to previous Bond pics. Olga Kurylenko is also respectable in her performance as Camille Montes and you don't need a double intender- name.

One thing that I really appreciate here; although he commit sex with Strawberry Fields, he never make a bed scene with Camille.
6/10
More Bourne then Bond
em-charlotte22 November 2008
Marc Fosters interpretation of Bond is different from the original character. He is more like a Bond. In Casino Royale he started to sway from the original Bond but in a good way, making him seem more human in the way that he did get hurt.

In Quantum of Solace this was the same but the action sequences were extremely similar to those in the Bourne movies, in reference to the seen in Quantum of Solace when Bond seeks a pair of scissors for a weapon is comparison to Bourne using a pen. Both these scenes are set in a hotel room.

Even the story line was similar as the main message can be interpreted as don't trust anyone and Bourne's can be interpreted to a similar theme.

The movie is still utterly entertaining and a good watch, except for certain plane scenes going for 5 minutes+. As I love the Bourne movies but next time i hope that they bring Bond back as I did not pay to see Bourne.
7/10
Way better when watched right after Casino Royale
pierre-975689 October 2021
What most people don't understand about this movie is that it is infinitely better when watched immediately after Casino Royale. The fair criticism that the story of this movie is weak is fair (and if you dig into the history of this movie there is a lot of explanation as to why, including significant script issues prior and during the filming). But in fact when paired directly with Casino Royale, quantum of solace brings the story of Casino Royale to some measure of closure. And with the emotional support of the story of Casino Royale behind it, the story of quantum of solace becomes far more meaningful. The first time I watch these two movies back to back I was blown away by how much better quantum of solace was. So in my opinion, you have to treat Casino Royale and quantum of solace as a single film. Give it a try, you might be surprised.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Possibly The Best Bond Film To Date!
ppoker3 November 2008
What an absolutely brilliant film! I must say that I had reservations about a continuation of the story from Casino Royale, one because it had never been done before and two because Casino Royale never actually wowed me. However, after watching Quantum of Solace I discarded all prejudices I had against the film and the idea because, it works wonderfully. The pain that Bond is clearly feeling is portrayed excellently by Daniel Craig, who is a brilliant actor and makes a fantastic Bond regardless of what anyone might say. Non-stop action from the word go! Olga Kurylenko is looking absolutely stunning throughout the whole film, but then again would you settle for any less from a Bond girl? It is an absolutely fantastic film, and is a must see for everyone regardless of whether you are a Bond fan or not! Awesome!
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Something is not quite right with this latest Bond offering
prov63 June 2009
This is a response to user Gordon-11's "something is not quite right with this latest bond offering". It is something I have noticed in the last few years - that movies are hard to follow because they show a scene, then move on to the next scene before you can see everything or read what the previous scene was showing. Also, you cannot hear, what the characters are saying, over all the noise and/or loud music. I am certain that this is a "trick" the movie companies are using to increase DVD sales/rentals, because you can slow down and stop DVD's to catch what you miss at normal speed, and you can use subtitles to understand what the characters are saying. Because of this, I am going to the theater less and less these days, and will probably soon quit altogether, and simply wait for the DVD's to come to the library, thereby saving money, and being able to understand the movies.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
have attempted watching it numerous times
gandalfthegrey-4219630 August 2021
...and I can never remember what the heck it was about. I loved Casino Royale, and I usually end up watching this whenever I watch that one because it's supposed to be a follow-up. However, I usually end up falling asleep or not finishing it.

Utterly forgettable. One of those movies I try to watch every so often because I can't remember if I've seen it or not, when really I have tried watching it multiple times and it's just excruciatingly boring and unengaging.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Another great Bond film
guitardan_17 December 2008
I've read a lot of negative reviews of Quantum of Solace, so here's my 2 cents.

So, to respond to the main detractors: the opening car chase was thrilling, those that tell you they felt sea-sick from the editing should go and watch antiques roadshow and stay out of the cinema. Yes, there are plenty of things that are unrealistic is this movie. If you're looking for realism then why are you watching a Bond film? One of them had an invisible car in it! So what if it's unrealistic? It's cool. And that's all that matters. There's plenty of humour, it's just not the Roger Moore eyebrow-raised humour. And finally yes, it's a lot darker. Bond has suffered a huge personal loss in the previous film and he doesn't care who he kills to atone for that. Anyone who says there's no character development in this film was watching a different film to me.

To the people complaining that Quantum of Solace is not exactly like Casino Royale, why don't you go watch Casino Royale again?

There were a couple of things that stopped the film from getting full marks though: the plot was a little convoluted, the computer system the headquarters guys used was ridiculously over-designed, but they're minor flaws in a great night out at the movies. If delivers what it's supposed to from a Bond movie - cool.
2/10
QOS - watch it?
vis-kaul7 November 2008
My first impression about QOS was that I am going to watch a movie which has legendary 007, glam babes, Aston martin and the cutting edge gadgets but I guess the movie did not live up to my expectations. Movie had great action sequences which leaves us wanting for more but lacks bond charm and a story line. Movie is fast paced but has a weak story and you may go for a soda while the movie is on. Paul haggis can do a much better job with stories. Also the typical bond music has changed its outlook can be little indifferent to ears. Watch it if you ain't doing anything on the weekend. Daniel Craig needs to sound like bond and not a *ornstar.

My score is 5/10 just for the action sequences
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A different Kind of Bond !!
aamir-engg10 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not a bad film, but not brilliant either - far from it. Rather than compare it to Casino Royale which was different, and, in my opinion, weaker than many of the previous Bond films over the years, it does act as a logical sequel. Leading up to the release of Qauntum of Solace my expectations were not high because of the early reviews and I thought it would be difficult to match the outcome of the brilliant Casino Royale. I know regard Casino Royale as a modern day classic and one of the best Bond movies.

QoS is high on action and low on story, in-depth characterization, humor and interesting characters. The plot is frustratingly difficult to follow and I came out of the cinema struggling to remember what the plot was about. CR was also difficult to follow but it still kept you hooked.

The action is let down because of the shaky camera that is very similar to the Bourne movies. The main weakness about the film is that it does not feel like a Bond movie. David Arnold's theme is non existent and for some reason he chooses not to use the Bond Theme until the end credits. Also I do not understand why the traditional gun barrel sequence is moved to the end and not at the start. The film lacked any humor and the witty one liners are not present. Little changes like this is how it makes the film feel like an ordinary film and not a Bond film I would give 7 out of ten
5/10
It was good, but not as good as it was hyped up to be, and nowhere near as good as Casino Royale.
slive-27 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't get me wrong, this was a very entertaining,fast moving film, there were no boring part's of this film and the action sequences were brilliantly done. The downside of this instalment to the 007 franchisee was the way it was executed, the story was not very well explained, if you had not seen Casino Royale, then you would most likely have no idea what is going on in this film. It was about Bond going out to find who was responsible and the reason of why Vesper killed herself, but it drifted of onto a story about Bolivia and its Oil/Water supply and that was a good thing, but it should have cleared up the situation about Vesper first. Also it was filmed like a Bourne film, and Bond was treated like Bourne as the MI6 were after him. The annoying shaky cam was in it to much and it didn't explain what happened to Mr. White.

But over all it was an entertaining film, but did not match up to the brilliant film of Casino Royale.

Another good side to Quantum of Solace was that I thought the actors were really good in it, and I am very much looking forward to the next Bond and I hope Daniel Craig stay's as Bond for a long time.
9/10
I was told Quantum was no good, I was given misinformation
Dan067125 December 2008
I really enjoyed Casino Royale. I've always thought of the Bond series as a fun, almost comedic set. I really wasn't a fan of P.B. and when I heard Craig was to play the newest incarnation of Bond I wasn't all that excited. Craig though just kills as Bond. He makes you feel his anger and his passion. He's really just bad***. I was told Quantum wasn't nearly as good as Royale. I was told it was boring and it was confusing. The only thing that confused me was where these opinions came from. I LOVED Quantum. I enjoyed it more than Royale which was previously my favorite Bond movie. The storyline was great and Craig was just wonderful. I would recommend this movie, highly. I feel so strongly about this movie that I decided to post on IMDb for the first time so give it a shot, you'll thank me.

**edit: I read through many comments on this film and clearly see where the negative posts come from. People who want the Bond series to stay true to the past are disappointed. This is more of a serious type movie than the older Bond type movies. Many compare it to the Bourne movies and I think that's close. I enjoyed the Bourne series and I loved this film.
9/10
A comment from Bolivia
gat_ubela14 January 2009
I liked a lot the film because now they present a James Bond more close to reality, one that gets hurt, dirty, feels something ... a performance more real.. The script was good and full of details and it can bring different types of emotions along the movie but ..... I am from Bolivia and I believe that they should have filmed here, we have many beautiful scenarios that could have served much more than the ones used for the film.

To mention a few: the Lake Titicaca (number 17 in the new seven wonders of the world), Salar of Uyuni (unique in its beauty in the world), the Yungas and or Madidi Park or the Noel Kempff Mercado Park (selvatic, humid forest, world heritage), etc. Besides, in the Andean cities like La Paz, the government site, they could have filmed also he "cholitas" who are women that use in everyday life their traditional costumes this is big skirts resembling the ones of the colony (since the colony of the Spanish...) Bolivia is in a few words: original, unique, beautiful and diverse. This film missed that ... Film here the next time, we are very friendly!!
6/10
Low Key but enjoyable for much of the time
JamieThunder3 June 2009
Quantum Of Solace was something of a disappointment for me. I've been a huge Bond fan since childhood, and have enjoyed every movie Danjaq/EON has thus far produced and Quantum is no exception. However i found it lacking in all the key areas that make a superb Bond movie and as is such it just manages to get by with the label of "ordinary", which for a Bond movie isn't a good thing. I think one of the main problems is that it is the first Bond movie made after the stellar Casino Royale, which as far as i'm concerned is The Godfather of all Bond movies and if the series continues for another hundred years is going to be hard to top. So Quantum had a difficult time from the beginning. That said i was delighted when i heard that Marc Forster would be directing, having loved his films especially Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction, and couldn't wait to see where Daniel Craig would take the character after the events of Casino Royale. And so it was a bit of anti climax. The action scenes where kind of run of the mill, the car chases for instance just looked like an average car commercial. These scenes should be iconic but Forster doesn't quite grasp that and they are somewhat bland. Also the under use of Gemma Artheton as Strawberry Fields is a bit gratuitous and a step backwards which is a shame especially when compared to the way Vesper was written and performed in Casino. Mathieu Almeric as the villainous Dominic Greene simply doesn't work and Alamaric will in time prove to be the least memorable Bond villain, he sort of resembles Klaus Maria Brandauers Largo from Never Say Never Again without the panache, or any hint of menace, and therefore just falls flat. So for the pluses, Daniel Craig is totally in command of the part and its brilliant to watch. He handles the action and loves scenes with the right charisma, its just a shame the part this time out is less effective than the previous film. Also i don't like the idea of Bond killing all and sundry, because its putting him in Rambo territory and i hope they curb this in the next movie. I like the under current of tragedy that exists in Craigs Bond and i like his commitment to his mother figure M again played superbly by Judi Dench. The action scenes are good as always, and David Arnolds themes are exciting as is the theme song Another Way To Die by Jack White and Alicia Dixon. Its also cool to see the gun barrel scene at the end of the movie, it really feels like a Bond movie and maybe it should have been at the beginning? So for the next movie the producers really need to take a look at the likes of The Spy Who Loved Me and Thunderball, even Goldeneye. It needs to be a spectacle, bigger, better, funnier, but not cliché or cheesiness. It still needs to have a human story, sharp direction and altogether deeper tone. It needs to be a Bond Movie.
7/10
Starts with a bang, and reminiscent of The Bourne Ultimatum
story32114 November 2008
This movie takes place minutes after Casino Royal ends. It starts with a wild car chase on windy roads along a cliff and nearly jumps from one action set piece to another during the first hour. Conspiracies are unveiled and some riddles are solved. And the body-count is high.

The acting is just as intense as Casino Royal and Daniel Craig continues to make his James Bond a more human hero to the extent that this guy actually doesn't come out of a fight unscathed. Unlike Bonds of the past, this guy still gets hurt, but because he's a killing machine, he just keeps on going. Olga Kurylenko does a very convincing Bolivian accent, and her emotional obsession for revenge mimics that of Bond's, though her character isn't the trained killer that he is. Gemma Arterton's Ms Fields provides a giddy counterpoint to Kurylenko's character. And Judi Dench is always impressive as M.

I think where the film suffers though is in its final hour, which really isn't an hour, but 45 minutes. The action gives way to plot points that could have been seeded in between the action in the first hour. It makes the movie feel lopsided, and yet it doesn't take away from the suspension of disbelief. Mind you, the movie does end with a massive display of wild action and pyrotechnics.

But the one saving grace is that this movie ends much like The Bourne Ultimatum ended. Like Bourne, Bond has released the demons of his past and knows who he truly is. Judging by how many people clapped after the final shot of the movie played, a third Bond film is definitely expected.
10/10
One of the best Bond films ever.
foxfire18620 November 2008
As a self-admitting Bond fanatic, and having seen every Bond, including the Lazenby and original Casino Royale, I may be partial. But all Walther-induced affection aside, I found this installment to be one of the best of the series, period. It is ironic that a story Flemming didn't write became a film that captured so brilliantly his James Bond. There has been a lot of "not good enough" and "too rough" cries from people with no appreciation for a Bond film as anything other than an action movie. This is a spy film. This installment carries the wonderfully the qualities of deception, egotism, seduction, cold-blooded murder, cynical humor, and brutal violence that encompass the core of the novel Character perhaps better than any of the other Bond films. While this is notably a departure from laser gun fights in space and whatever the Hell "The World Is Not Enough" was, that should be embraced by true Bond fans. "Quantum of Solace" not only lets us know what we can expect from Craig as a true-grit James Bond, it delivers a death-blow to the original "Casino Royale" from the '60s, and any Bond film that wandered too far from the path. This film is a righteous reclaiming of Bond's throne as a ruthless, genius, debonair, audacious, depressed, alcoholic, egotistical and down right bad-ass super-spy. Remember, Bond is the most dangerous weapon in Her Majesty's arsenal, not just some playboy with a Shaguar. Connery's Bond from Dr. No with his "You've had your six, now I'll have mine." can only give a cold wink in approval; bringing this brilliant 007 piece right back to its roots, in a blaze of glory.
4/10
Casino Royale - YEAH!, Quantum of Solace - YUCK!
bobmackpeak15 November 2008
Let me start by saying, yuck, horrible, someone should get fired or never work in Hollywood again. Casino Royale saved the 007 franchise with great cinematography, excellent action (with steady cam) and a great script (know your villain, know the problem). Hoorah, couldn't wait for the next one! Quantum of Solace does the opposite – I don't care if I ever see another 007 movie by this director (Marc Foster) and writers (Paul Haggis & Neal Purvis), although Daniel Craig is still Bond. Another example of 30-somethings making a movie shot on a cell phone. Where to begin… Action sequences are shaky cam to maximum sea sick levels – you can't even tell if Bond is in the scene, can't follow any action. There are 6 possible villains and you're never sure which one he's after and no character development of any of the villain(s). You really don't care about any of the dozen characters that slide in and out. What's the problem or threat…? Good luck figuring this one out, even in the end! Would have walked out, but respecting Daniel Craig I stayed to the bitter end. Go and boo this one loudly. Casino Royale was directed by Martin Campbell and he got it right. Studio… please never let Marc Foster (from Germany, 39 years old, Kite Runner, Stranger than Fiction) direct an action movie in this town again or Paul Haggis write another lame, who cares script!
8/10
Bond fans don't have to be ashamed anymore
jfwaalbers6 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond's 22nd, and Craig's 2nd, adventure got mixed reviews in the British and Dutch press. Undoubtedly this is due to the high standards set by 'Casino Royale'. I, as an avid Bond-fan regularly plagued by nightmares caused by 'The World is not Enough' and especially ' Die Another Day' (Madonna as a sword-fighter in a Bond-film?), am still very much excited by the reinvention of the series that started two years ago.

Comparisons to the Bourne trilogy are as much to the point as they are irrelevant. It is just the result of the visual style of action films these years, a style driven to the extreme in 'Cloverfield', and obviously present in 'Quantum of Solace'. However, Bond is not Bourne. Matt Damon had the disadvantage of his boyish looks, which made his amorous relationship impropable, and his amnesia, that robbed him from both character history and emotional depth. Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond is fascinating in every part of dialogue (especially those with a brilliant Judi Dench as M).

Critics emphasizing the supposed lack of content in the story are blinded by what seems an overload of action and geographical changes. The travelling around the world is indeed too much, and is annoyingly accompanied by typography in the frame (why do we need to read that bond is in Bolivia if we've already been told he is going there). Certain sequences tend to go on for too long or are too fragmentary: especially the 'Port-au-Prince' chapter.

On the other hand the writers have done away with much of the typical explanatory, pace-killing dialogue that hindered especially the Pierce Brosnan films. We will not see villains bringing about their own demise by explaining to Bond there plan to wreak havoc upon the earth. One could even say that main thug Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) gets too little screen time.

But QoS makes up for these minor flaws by offering an incredible pace and stunning performances by Craig, Dench, Amalric and Jesper Christensen. The latter is scary in his lack of fear of torture after being captured and wounded by Bond. Furthermore there are at least three utterly breathtaking sequences. First of all the car chase that opens the film with a blast. Second: a short scene showing the despair of a Bolivian rural village, which gives the renewed Bond series an unexpected social dimension. Most impressing however is the Bregenz scene. A scene that, through clever dialogue, its combination of images and music, and its cross-cutting with a modern performance of Tosca, offers something never seen before in a James Bond movie. If only for this scene one should see the film in a movie theatre.

Summarized: not as balanced as Casino Royale, but still very entertaining, and much, much better than the rubbish offered to us in the Brosnan years (with the exception of 'GoldenEye'). Bond fans don't have to be ashamed anymore.
5/10
A very good film, but not a Bond film.
Kertiz31 October 2008
I read someone else's summary on here, and I'd have to say I agree. For me, they've gone too far in changing the traditional Bond theme.

I accept that it needed to be modified; the Pierce Brosnan gadget aura (despite there now being vast amounts of Sony gadgets in this movie - damned advertising!) was exaggerated and boring.

But a prime example of them, in my opinion, going too far in changing the Bond series, is that this is the first ever Bond movie where Bond doesn't say 'Bond, James Bond.' Yeah, get rid of (most of) the cheesy lines (even though we associate these with Bond), but at least keep the moments that define Bond, such as that tag-line. In addition, its too detached and, like another user commented, too 'Bourne-like'.

Nonetheless, its an excellent movie and you should definitely go and see it. The comparisons that are portrayed between Bond's fight scenes and other situations that are occurring nearby (i.e. a play) are fantastic. There's some very good action scenes, too, which you'd always associate with Bond. And at least they kept the famous soundtrack/credits bit at the start.

This or Casino Royale? Casino Royale, without a doubt.
1/10
Writers, please effort MORE the next time!
misinscripciones-redesso8 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although the actors do a very good job, and the very general idea was interesting, the WRITERS and DIRECTOR didn't try it very hard when it was about the minute after minute of the movie. Too many mistakes when it comes to simple human behavior credibility. I simply stopped watching the movie when I couldn't tolerate more of this, it was 10 minutes left to the end, I simply couldn't stand any more of it.

1. Miss "M" changed her mind TOO QUICKLY both for giving the step to CONTINUING trusting. At the beginning she looked like a a hard boss, when she said "cancel bond's credit cards", and then, quite a loving mother when she said, SUDDENLY, just A FEW SECONDS AFTER FIRING HIM, "I trust him", with out any reasonable transition to such change of mind.

2. The action is good, but there was lost time in unnecessary scenes that could have been better used for tying up the loose ends, not with useless scenes but with more smart information leading to the right path.

Bond's behavior is the only that one can more or less believe. But damn, the DECISIONS made by the other characters was, in general, quite unlikely and that, man, makes me say: both WRITERS and DIRECTOR need STRIVE far MORE THE NEXT TIME FOR PRODUCING at least a not-so-bad series of scenes and lost budget, there was no need for that.
9/10
Go and see it!
lawson-howling2 November 2008
First time I have ever been to see a film on release day, sad i know! However, I wasn't disappointed! Daniel Craig puts in another sterling performance as 007 and I maintain he is the best bond since Sean Connery. The film boasts some terrific action scenes and takes you through several exotic locations.

The baddie in a James Bond is always an integral part of the film, and the latest one fills that part brilliantly. His sinister, evil side develops as the film progresses.

Overall, one of the greatest James Bond films ever made and I strongly recommend you go and see it!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good...but not very Bond
friendlydictator2 November 2008
If Casino Royale was a series reboot, than Quantum of Solace has completed the 180 degree turn from Brosman-era Bond. It is all shaky-cams, brutal beatings and a prevailing atmosphere of darkness. Craig's Bond is out for revenge.

As an action movie, the film is very impressive - with at least twice as many action set-pieces as its predecessor. The scene at the opera is wonderful - Forster artfully cutting between the events of the play and the actions of Bond. The clash between Bond and Greene (a sneering, wild-eyed Mathieu Almalric) is also a highlight. Indeed, the only let-down on the action front is the pre-credits sequence - traditionally the stunt men's moment in the sun. The car chase seems flat and a little pointless - just an excuse to show off Bond's latest Aston Martin.

Craig is once again excellent in the lead role - its been said many times before, but his vision of Bond is physically imposing, brutally unsentimental and a close representation of Fleming's original character. He teams up with Olga Kurylenko's Camille, as she too hunts for revenge. Although it is difficult to become fully emotionally invested in her quest, the pair's relationship has a very different dynamic to that of the normal Bond/Bond Girl coupling, and Kurylenko is a presence. However, Gemma Arteton briefly threatens to steal her thunder as Strawberry Fields (second only to Pussy Galore as the best Bond girl name ever).

So the action's great. The acting is spot-on. Why dosn't it feel quite right?? The biggest problem is the story - it's confusing (practically incomprehensible if you haven't watched Casino Royale) and although there is a sense that greater forces are at work, Greene's villainous plot just seems a bit tame when compared to enemies of old. It's also very dark, and the crucial ingredient of humour is lacking for much of the film. Yes, Bond (quite rightly) has matured, become more complex and interesting than the vaguely one-dimensional character of old. But Bond could always be relied upon to provide guns, girls and a few laughs - in re-inventing the series, the producers are in danger of forgetting the original basic Bond formula. This latest offering owes a lot to the Bourne films, and like that trilogy, it is thrilling, full of suspense, well made, but not always everyone's idea of fun.

It's a very different beast to the usual Bond films, and will sit uneasily in its canon - it is, however, a superior thriller and a very good film.
8/10
007
mrpapas28 June 2012
Each Bond brings something to the character and suite their eras. Daniel Craig is more brute than his predecessors though fits the darker more realistic Quantum of Solace. They distilled bond and our generation, as with the batman saga and others, are left with a refined straight forward ass-kicking 007.

Quantum of Solace picks up right where Casino Royale left off and centers around a group of shadowy elite and control of natural resources. It's an original plot and follows Casino Royale well. All things considered Quantum of Solace and Casino Royal are second to no other bond film. The films have the most realistic action sequences, special effects, plot and are less cheesy than some of the predecessors. The pun threshold is definitely pulled back to a better level. Great film. Worth watching!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't expect Casino Royal 2, cause you ain't gonna get it.
bangbadaboom31 March 2009
Casino Royal gained critical acclaim for its original take on the iconic character of 'Bond'. Unfortunately its sequel does not, and for good reason. Casino Royal directed by Martin Cambell, injected a much needed formula of grit and realism to the 'Bond' franchise (which after Die Another Day had begun to run out of bond charm and begin to become old fast). so the new direction of casino royal gave bond a refreshing new image which had adapted to the times. The inclusion of a serious actor like Daniel Craig gave the character bond much more depth and dynamics and essentially made the character far more interesting (somthing which hasn't been seen since Timmothy Dolten or Sean Connery stepped into the role). So a detailed and interesting plot, believable characters and a new serious direction for the franchise is why Casino Royal was a success. so why did they have to go and change the formula?

Qauntum of solace, is a fast pace action film which strings some very impressive action set pieces together with a plot which doesn't have time to explain itself which left me confused about what exactly was going on, and at the end whether or not i should even care. The new direction which was seen in Casino Royal has seemed to take a sharp u-turn in Qauntum Of Solace back to the Bond of Peirce Brosnen, which is very disappointing. For the duration of the film i was left wondering how Quantum Of Solace is a sequel to Casino Royal. Because for most it goes a completely different film.

But than again maybe thats the point of bond, every film is a different interpretation of the the same character. maybe thats why we've never minded much that bond has changed faces so frequently. this is because bond never had sequels they were essentially all different films even if the actor stayed the same. but maybe thats why Quantum Of Solace was so disappointing because it called itself a sequel to Casino Royal, and i expected the same formula of film. But unfortunately Marc Foster thought that reviving cheesy one liners, an overall barrage of action sequences (although very impressive) and a very subdued impression of realism was a good idea. it would be if i was expecting another film with Peirce brosnen in but i wasn't and in the end felt slightly disappointed and very confused.

So what am i driving at?this film:

doesn't live up to its predecessor (casino royal)

takes too much from the more unsuccessful bond movies

next to no plot and no character depth from the bond girls

impressive action sequences (although a lot take away the realism)

Daniel Craig doesn't fit a bond with cheesy one lines, EVER!!! so why include them?

still includes some grit and darkness from the previous which is good

unrealistic gadgets and technologies are beginning to creep back into the franchise.

this isn't anywhere as good as casino Royal, don't expect it to be and you won't be disappointed.

not very original

this film unfortunately has given a bad sign for the bond films in the future. disappointing.
8/10
by the end of the film I was left with a sense of a complete character that I recognized as 007
Armitage847227 December 2008
As a 'Bond' fan I am incredibly excited about the direction that the producers, writers and Daniel Craig have taken the character. The latest installment is a great continuation in Bond's development. It describes the origin of his passion and commitment. Casio Royal left Bond brash and desolate and this is felt through out the first half of Quantum of Solace. One other reviewer described him as a thug with 00 status. This is very much an accurate description however this stage of his development is a necessary one as by the end of the film I was left with a sense of a complete character that I recognized as 007. That the Bond we are accustomed to is now been developed and enriched by this journey.

Quantum of Solace is a great homage to the book. Although by no means is an accurate depiction of the short story by Flemming, it does however carry the same themes of Bond's development and growth and provides a greater understanding to the character.

For those people who want to see gadgets, guns and girls, watch the previous Bonds. However those of you who want to see a renewing of the character and Bonds development then go and watch this movie. Both Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace strip back these common and identifiable element that make a James Bond movie and offers a very raw, passionate and at times aimless character that can only be expected in this telling of his origin as a 00 agent.

My sense at the end of Quantum of Solace is that we now have a compete character and the third installment is going to provide some classic James Bond moments BUT still through the eyes of a real and edgy character that is able to be understood. I congratulate the producers, writers, creative staff and Daniel Craig himself for having the foresight and vision for redefining James Bond, but with out replacing what we know and love. I can only expect that the Craig's third outing as Bond is going to be something extraordinary. Keep the direction and momentum you have created.
Where's "Bond, James Bond"?
FlorinTanner6 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining in a generic action-movie sense. But there are certain things that Bond Films must contain, and they are missing here.

James Bond must at some point in the movie introduce himself as "Bond, James Bond." He doesn't. It's something that people look forward to, and the director has let us down here.

There has to be a "Bond Girl" with a humorous name. There is a character named "Strawberry Fields" but we don't find out her first name until the credits roll. She's just "Fields" in the movie. And she doesn't seem to have any function other than to look good and then die badly.

There has to be an evil bad guy out to do Something Really Bad. Overcharging for water utility bills doesn't quite make it.

There has to be Clever Gadgets, and a visit to Q to get them. In this movie it's just Bond and his Walther PPK. At least they could have given him some kind of cool app for his cell phone.

There are some winks to previous films, and I'll give them credit for those. But the Vesper Martini thing was really lame.

Overall it was very disappointing, and I'll avoid other Bond films by this director.
7/10
Bond Unorthodox
carl_Carbine15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After watching this movie, I did not immediately know what kind of judgement to pass upon it, but I thought that for a Bond film it is disappointing.

Watching Quantum I get the feeling that the movie-makers have run out of material/ideas for Bond movies and, in order to avoid the same hackneyed Bond game, decide to depart from traditional Bond and explore new territory.

The problem is that too much emotional depth is invested into Bond. He starts to have deep, complicated feelings for women. Take Vesper for example. His "love" for her motivates his desire for revenge on the General(the "adrenaline" part), but in the end he thrusts the necklace onto the snow. Or the way he is emotionally involved with Mathis, and rues his death yet dumps his body in the trash and saying something unfeeling... This is not the cool, collected, suave Bond we know.. He makes love with women, yes, but "love"? He kills people without so much as batting an eyelid, but feeling sad for loss of life? And he's not supposed to be so cruel to torture people with motor oil in the desert..

Clearly the Bond of Quantum is a much for emotionally-volatile one. Bond movies, I believe, aren't meant to explore such deep issues.

Also, the introduction of "politics" changes the game-plan. No longer is Bond safe in the right vs. wrong concept, with every action (including sleeping with beautiful girls) validated and warranted by the fact that he is doing his duty for King and country, but now good and bad isn't so clear-cut. The Americans(CIA) who are after oil, have they become the villains? To the point that Bond becomes for a while distrusted by M: Was he doing the right thing? The bond theme isn't even played throughout the movie(as far as I notice) except till the closing credits. And he did not say his classic "the name's Bond"-or-variation-of-it line.

Having said these the action scenes were excitingly and tantalisingly filmed, for example the plane scene( the parachute drop was rather incredible though), though the dialogues got rather cheesy at times, but all in all it is a decent film on its own. But as a Bond movie it defies our established expectations.
8/10
Bond is the new Bourne
invidious011 November 2008
My favourite movie of the year is the Dark Knight, I'm glad to say that Quantum of Solace came pretty close to that in terms of enjoyment, storyline and depth of characters.

Firstly, i don't like this film as much as Casino Royale. The reasons behind this are that it doesn't feel 100% like a Bond movie. They took away Moneypenny, Q, all the gadgets (except phones and a windows 7 touchscreen desk), the witty humour isn't there anymore and trademarks like 'Im Bond, James Bond' i was surprised to know weren't there anymore!

IMO this Bond film has been transformed into a Bourne movie - this is not a bad thing however. Without the cool gadgets (no matter how much i wanted them) the action is non-stop and really fast - forget martial arts style disarming etc, it is just beating after beating with anything you can find from your environment.

By taking a bit of Bourne, Bond is absolutely ruthless in this movie - which i think suits him. You really have to choose between slick Bond with gadgets and this new ruthless agent who is really hands on and bad ass - personally both kick ass but i like classic Bond even though the new one is brilliant too.

By discarding some of the above things, the film left more room for the story and characters - and you do get to a different depth with the characters this time round which i really liked. Its a really good balance of action and story which not many films can always balance out right. But again this is like Bourne.

Overall i'd give it 8/10 - Daniel Craig was brilliant in this film. This proves to me he was able to play a Pierce Brosnan style Bond in Casino Royale - but can also be a bad ass m.f in Quantum of Solace.

I hope thats OK for my first review ^_^
7/10
The sequel to a better film
stmaciain3 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The reboot of the Bond series with Casino Royale was a success. Casino Royale was an excellent film bringing James Bond back to tough, realistic films in which he doesn't rely on unbelievable gadgets.

Quantum of Solace follows from the events of Casino Royale, making it a sequel. So, as with most sequels, it falls far below par.

There is nothing specific within the film I can pinpoint that doesn't work. The casting is appropriate, the action sequences are competent, the organisation of Quantum is well created and there are several decent scenes. Yet still, the film just does not work as a whole.

There is nothing wrong with the construction of the action sequences, but they are just dull, not gripping in the slightest. Quantum is introduced well, and the concept is promising, but in the end it's revealed all they are doing is threatening to withhold water from the greater part of a country thousands of miles from London. A serious affair for the inhabitants, admittedly, but hardly a fitting mission for the UK's top secret agent. (Admittedly the main storyline for Bond is dealing with Vesper's death, but they still could have made Quantum's operation something more relevant to MI6.)

Quantum, James Bond going rogue and finally sacrificing personal vengeance through self-control, a deposed dictator trying to retake his country - these are all promising themes, but none of the promise is realised. Personally, I did not find it bad as such, only tedious. The film is just two or three brilliant scenes stitched together with unnecessary, boring action sequences: like all sequels, it isn't as good as the original.
3/10
Mediocre and muddled
Baron-Sitron15 November 2008
Marc Forster managed to make a pretty film. The majority of it looks pleasant, especially the MI6 headquarters. Bond looks much better than in Casino Royale, as does everyone else but compared to everything else in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace cannot be considered anything but a disappointment. It lacks in almost anything that is needed from a Bond movie - the primary thing being the enjoyment the viewer is supposed to get from Bond's violent actions and his overcoming of extreme situations.

The action scenes are incoherent beyond belief with only one or two instances where they pack any punch. Gone is the physical threat and physical extremity that dominated Casino Royale and made it so effective: The sword wielding Africans, the bashing-of-head- against sink and the infamous "ball scratching" scene. The violence here is all implied or worse muddled. We are told constantly that Bond is far gone, a loose cannon but yet we see only hints of it with two pivotal scenes simply cut out (cases of Bond supposedly forcing information out of someone) and most of the violence shot and edited in a manner which makes it a near impossibility to see what is going on.

The villain lacks everything - his plans are boring, his organization unconvincing and he at no point seems to be any threat to Bond. Daniel Craig hardly gets anything to do (barring stumbling through above mentioned action scenes). The only scene where he has to show any emotion (discussing Vesper with Matheas) his eyes are blocked by sunglasses making the scene play like a joke.

Beforehand I was interested in seeing what Marc Forster would do with a Bond film, afterward I was only bored.
10/10
Fantastic Bond in revenge.
kazidipto-382033 October 2020
This was the most fine bond film that i had ever seen. Waiting for no time to die,to see another thrilling revenge of jams bond. Daniel Craig is best bond ever.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
My wife enjoyed it
JohnnyDancer21 November 2008
My wife, for whom English is a second language, enjoyed this movie more than I did for there wasn't too much dialogue to follow, just a lot of car chases, fight scenes, plane chases, boat chases, etc. Actually, it felt as though about 70% of the screen time was taken up by running, jumping, shooting, punching, kicking, driving, and chasing. Though the action scenes went into overkill, it did work out well for my wife because it didn't allow for the movie to develop an overly complex storyline to follow.

In all, I found this movie to be a very interesting inclusion into the Bond series. Though I neither liked it or hated it, it was not what I have come to expect from a Bond movie.

A very interesting inclusion into the Bond franchise indeed.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Always falling in convenient common places
plauria13 November 2008
It is good to know that Bond movies still keep the sense of humor talking of countries of the third world. Stupid stereotypes about the people, as the taxi driver speaking with no sense, brainless dictators in the government (looks like South America has not other kind of government), and the corrupt policemen that seems they came from a Cantiflas movie, make the film funny. As much to know that Olga Kurylenko plays a Bolivian girl. Just in your dreams. An it is no necessary to say that Chile doesn't look like Bolivia, specially for the roads.

About the rest, good action, cute girls(too far from Lois Chiles, Halley Berry and Izabella Scorupco characters), action flashes and a strong presence of Craig define this movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Is everyone missing the point? Austin Powers killed the old Bond franchise!
kev_reid19811 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, Quantum of Solace isn't as good as Casino Royale, but the point in this movie is to show the further development of the Bond character.

Remember that this is Bond in the beginning, hence the reason that the film-makers keep making reference to the fact that he hasn't found his trademark drink yet and isn't as refined as the Bond that everyone knows and loves.

Granted there are no jet-packs, cars with machine guns & ejector seats, secret hideouts hidden inside hollowed out volcanoes or even an a ridiculous villain who is trying to take over the world. However this is entirely the reason that the new Bond works so well, Pre-Casino Royale Bond was really difficult to watch without picturing Austin Powers.

People are complaining of there being too much action in QOS, but Bond has turned into a human wrecking-ball in this movie because of the emotions of the betrayal and death of the woman he loved and almost losing the only mother figure in his life. A man scorned and out for vengeance, he spends most of the movie flying by the seat of his pants. I find it refreshing to see that Bond is a volatile emotional person underneath the smooth suave persona.

Bond as a character is slowly developing into the character that we're all familiar with. Give it time, years down the line this movie along with Casino Royale and Bond 23 will be regarded as classics.
10/10
Masterpiece - hands down the most Bond there has ever been in a Bond film..
oskaringvar-310-91090812 April 2020
This movie is absolutely stellar. I am so happy the producers went down this path bothwith the story and the creative team with an art house director as Marc Foster helming the directors chair. It is a beautifully shot film making exceptionally good use of its many locations.. The editing is absolutely awesome and unprecedented in a Bond movie - I completely marvel at it every time I watch the movie (the parallell editing of the car chase, the horse race, the opera!!!). The story is told to a great measure with pictures and moves and has a quite sparse but awesome dialogue and the actors are all first class. One of the best bond villains for sure. David Arnolds music is compelling. This film is true to the source material (book Bond) and I'm sure Ian Fleming would be very happy.

Finishes off the story started in Casino Royale in a really nice and emotional way.

Daniel, Barbara and Michael & Co, Thank you for this movie!
8/10
The "Green" angle was good...
aloha-3629 December 2008
I loved the action and the whole "Green" angle was great. I see so many evil shades of green everywhere these days. Storing the energy in fuel cells to operate the hotel was pretty kewl too. Anyone know any real- life evil greenies?

Hollywood has again stepped up efforts to be current but as usual, there's a bit of a challenge to suspend disbelief when physics get in the way. I guess it all goes to show that greenwashing can have consequences!

This reminds me to the Bond movie with the tanks of sharks. On the outside it looked like the bad guy was a shark lover. But really he just wanted the sharks around so he could feed them.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A short, sharp, sombre thriller.
mrhappy_84 December 2008
The Brocollis have produced another thrilling adventure. This time it's personal. With the film picking up just where the last one left off, it makes no apologies for people who haven't seen Casino Royale, as you are thrusting us into a close-quarters ride with a beginning destructive car chase filmed fast and frenetic. The story continues with Bond trying to find out the organisation the captured Mr White is working for. Which in-turn proves Bond doesn't know who to trust, as another MI6 agent is behind it also, which prevails into pulsing foot chase, from the sewer tunnels of Sienna, Italy to the rooftops ending with a spectacular fight entwining on the ropes of a construction site. This film moves like a bullet (with Bond doing more globe trotting and faster than any other picture) - upon second viewing the story was much more easier to grasp, but if you haven't even seen the first film, you'll be struggling slightly (but then again how could you have not seen CR). Where with Casino Royale is more of an epic that established the groundwork and story of Bond, this allows Quantum to go all out as well as extending the story as a short, taut, sharp thriller. While majority a critics and Bond fans even, have bashed this film for some reasons I can understand, it still holds up as a great addition to the franchise. Marc Forster is a very artistic and unconventional director that infuses some artsy font captions, scene transitions and music (especially the opera sequence, highlighting the opera's music with some action) makes it very interesting and different for the Bond picture, and shows this is a very different film to CR - being more dark and bleak. Daniel Craig is great again, and can say he is definitely the best bond, playing multi-layers of his character - keeping his emotions in-check while pursuing Quantum. One scene in particular shows a different side to Bond, with Bond and Mathis on a plane to Bolivia, in which they share private moment of understanding from one another, while Bond drink 6 martinis suppressing his emotions for Vesper. Olga Kurylenko is a great bond girl; very strong woman out for the revenge for her parent's death. Both Bond and her create a strong team to bring down the main villain. People have complained the main villain, Dominic Greene is not a superior match for Bond - some even commenting on no threatening features to hold over bond. But this is what the whole reinvention was about. People have still seemed to have missed the point after the success of CR. This is meant to a realistic depiction of the Bond world. Mathieu Amalric plays the villain as a very smarmy and calculated bastard. With this film there is no Bond and villain casual-friendly rapport between them before they try ultimately to kill one another. They instantly know each others motivations, and are not shy about their feelings toward each other, which allows Greene to give Bond a verbal beat-down at one point. The story and characters are very cut-to-the-chase, as well as the editing, but never allowing the film to feel short. It feels an acceptable length. Although there is double the action (with about 3 chase scenes in the first 30 minutes), it doesn't affect the story and dialogue scenes, as the action does have motivations and consequences resulting into the next scene. The plane dogfight sequence stands out for me, as a very impressive action sequence with Bond and Camille being shot from another plane while they're in an unarmed one. This sequence very much subtly shows this Bond does rely of his wits and physical prowess; to which I'm glad to see no dodgy gadgets. A few scenes do pay homage to the previous outings, with the demise on one character that directly taken from Goldfinger. Also, Bond's emotions get the better of him, making him out of control character, in which he shortly goes rogue. I find this idea interesting, much what they did with Licence To Kill, as Ian Fleming's Bond is very much his own man, and Bond is a figure to challenge authority, and I respect that move. Much anticipation was on this film after Martin Campbell relaunched Bond again with Goldeneye his first and CR his second, luckily QoS didn't fall into a Tomorrow Never Dies affair, but more of a For Your Eyes Only & Licence To Kill crossover, which is not a bad thing. My only criticisms, is the title sequence could have been better and more inventive, but the song has kind of grown on me, but it is not particularly a catchy or memorable tune. My other is Mathis returning to help Bond, which doesn't sit right, though the scenes is brilliantly acted, but felt like a story re-write so they could get Giannini to return. Though it is nice to see most of the cast return from the last one, as you accustomed to the characters. The end is very fitting, rounding off the Vesper storyline and Bond getting his 'quantum of solace', allowing the return of the traditional gunbarrel to proceed, signifying the making of Bond. This is definitely a wink to the audience that there will be a return to form in the next one with the traditional opening and bond theme tune - just hopefully no silly gadgets (which this didn't have), but I do agree with critics that Bond should enjoy himself a bit more next time now that he has closure. David Arnold's score is punchy and much more aggressive compared to CR's majestic and operatic score, which suits the tone and style of the film. It was always going to be hard to top CR, but QoS made a right move, keep it more solid and taut. I have feeling this film won't be as much as remembered as CR, but it is a sufficient follow up, and my trepidation has subsided.
7/10
Best actor to play Bond - Worst screenplay out of a Fleming book
emil-savu8 December 2008
My guess is that if Fleming would have to choose an actor to play Bond, Daniel Craig would be his first choice and not Sean Connery. Note that i don't even mentioned Pierce Brosnan. Mr. Craig is playing 007 just as i have imagined it reading the books. Overall i have enjoyed the movie - fast paced (too fast sometimes), good image directing, nice special effects. It is too bad thou that the screenplay gets us just too quick from one place to another, from one scene to the next. I was let to learn in school that any story should consist in few, but very important parts: characters presentation, the intrigue, the action and the ending. The main problem with this movie is that the intrigue is too vague and the action too fast. Despite that, I recommend the movie as one of the best James Bond movie ever made.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bring back the Bondian elements.
anandmenon8 November 2008
This is a physically demanding film and Daniel Craig as Bond showcases his physical skills and brings an intensity to the role sorely missing in the Bond played by Pierce Brosnan who looked like he was in need of a body double to just open the car door .Roger Moore's age was also brutally exposed in the scene from For Your Eyes Only where Bond has to run up the steps in hot pursuit..In total contrast this lithe ,lean mean Bond played by 40 year Daniel Craig is just about right for the frenzied,frenetic action.For sheer class Sean Connery is still the man to beat, but Craig comes a close second.

Craig giving you A Quantum of Sore-Arse?....not with this one.As the shortest Bond film and the direct sequel to Casino Royale(which was 20 minutes too long)and running at 110 minutes it broke the box office record for opening week ,stealing the record from Harry Potter.Retail therapy may be out and Britain maybe in a recession but Bond still mesmerizes audiences even though the film dispenses with the pretitle opening scene,Moneypenny,Q and cat stroking megalomaniacs with visions of world-domination; a staple from the Connery films.Breaking with tradition the Bond theme and the Gun Barrel sequence appear at the end.

Its not the best bond but in the vein of Bond with his rough edges intact it works.I hope in the next one they'd improve on the following - 1.A really bad-ass baddie or his sidekick coupled with a tight script. 2.Opening credits -The winner after all these years is STILL the awesome title sequence of From Russia With Love with the credits projected on to a gyrating belly dancer. 3.A really good title song-Shirley Bassey where are you? 4.Money penny-miss that banter between Bond and her. 5.And Q ?where's the standard mild admonishment...."Now pay attention double-oh- seven...try and bring back this piece of equipment in one piece will you?"...knowing fully well Bond never will. 6.The Bond Theme -gives me the goose pimples after all these years...why is it underused?

A good night out at the movies but not the best bond yet.
9/10
bond is more realistic
kavin_k329 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To all those people who miss the gadgets. Time to realize that this is the dawn of a more realistic and captivating Bond. definitely not the best in the franchise, but nevertheless it's a one worth remembering. Bond has come of time to become part of a greater story line rather than an episode of mere senseless action. I grew up in aspirations of Bond movies and this one has a complete new tone to it. Daniel is sheer elegance in the well tailored roles. The action sequences are mind blowing. Quantum of Solace, brings about more meticulous planning than most other Bond movies that I have seen. to me its up there with Casino Royale.
8/10
More Bourne Than Bond
superboy_a116 November 2008
This is my first review at IMDb.Just watched Quantum of Solace and i was pleased by the action in the movie. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench go full blazes in this action packed bond saga, but alas this is the only thing to appreciate. The story is nothing much to talk about. Most people won't appreciate this movie because they'll compare it with Casino Royale. If u are watching this with Casino Royale in mind then surely you'll be disappointed. As was the case with Casino Royale, Solace also has a distinct Bourne Style to it, although there is nothing wrong with it but sometimes you need the basic bond formula. Bond movies have thankfully entered a new era, hopefully the next flick would make amends.Daniel Craig is undoubtedly one of the better bonds and would surely excel in the future.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
new review 2011 james bond some spoil waiting qos b23
p_g_mail22 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ratings will be short and without tails - a sign of our times, there is a crisis everywhere, and something I need to stand out. The crisis has also reached and Bond (James of course). Watching it a while ago (like the dishes are gone dear children) do not even suspect that the interval between the next installment will be so long. While the 90 Bond reached the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (and some have postulated that he went to the well-deserved retirement), but this time he managed to come back (with a Polish accent, of course!).

But nowadays it back hanging by a thread (still hanging in fact, because the Bond number on the plan broke down in 1923 not even a single slate - at least officially), so we are left with only the last part of the review. Perhaps this is related to the storyline last film.

3 years ago James Bond decided to go back. Since the last part he managed to pack one very important man to the trunk, in this part of the man must bring to the hearing i. .. heard.

Turns out, however, that Bond's world (and as news of the closed municipal blogs actresses will also carry this in the next section) is different than it was before. While in the previous episode lost beloved, this has to fight an enemy who does not want to take over the world - he (or rather she / it) dominates the world (incidentally, this may be a reason no B23 for at least a year-fools revenge?).

Paradoxically, despite gasoline prices on the gold of our stations where you can do enormous profits (though no one is asking the questions why?) Is ... water! Yes yes H20, aqua or whatever language you call anywhere in the world. Although probably under a latitudes and longitudes it could be a sugar ...

James Bond, this time alone, maybe this is not entirely true, but the firing bad girl (where vengeance and justice turns out relative terms - as important, if by August this year the alleged murder of Bin Laden) is not something that usually support having an agent of Her Majesty he could call it protecting the back, especially at critical moments.

Is so it is worth to watch this movie? Yes, because there is no next Bond. Yes, because the competition is still not able to do something in his class (even if it has shed the old habits). Yes, if only because we see Oone Castille (descending from Chaplin-sic) in her small but well-reel moves.

Yes he can still attract Bond to the screen, even though the plane is a year where you age (though this is not ancient Hercules Polish Army, but this DC-3 is not the peak of the possibility of the aviation industry). So what is this film? Still the same as a book writer - another adventure guy, who still is the ideal for men and women (bisexual probably too!).

Strange but true. I think that despite ACHIEVEMENT OF RIGHT century (though there are some agents named Tom, who chose to retire in August and age ~ 30) this film is still worthy of a look. You can (like everything else earns good money) to call him rubbish because I gained a few hundred percent of the inserted financial resources.

But let's not forget that this is an ambitious film, because MGM has (had) the financial troubles. Quite the need to escape the product placement and sponsorship outside company and the profits from the previous August dissolved somewhere.

So this film with Mr. B., who are still able to overcome the whole world alone is worthy of a look. And like most probably watch the next, because the latter was not bad. Especially with how the> 60 year old looks quite young and nice shot catching the bad guys.

It is a pity the same can not be young forever carrying on such a pleasant, immortal life ....
8/10
Great Follow-up to Casino Royale
tinlizard323 November 2008
I can't understand why everyone is b!tching and moaning about this film. Sure it's not as good as Casino Royale, but it's a pretty good follow up. Sure, the story was complicated, but good movies usually take a few viewings to fully digest. If I had to complain about anything, I'd say there was maybe too much action. My favorite parts of Casino Royale were the poker scenes with Le Chiffre. I can't understand why so many people are upset by the new direction of the franchise. Don't get me wrong, I am a big Bond fan, but the franchise was getting ridiculous and boring. The reason Connery's early Bond films are held at such high regard is because they are not over the top. Connery never rode a motorcycle off a mountain or surfed on a tsunami. He played it with realism and that's what what it should be. And have you noticed how many of the Bond films are basically remakes of other Bond films? I'm glad the producers are taking it seriously and doing something new. If you are one of the many who is still complaining about Danial Craig and the new Bond direction, you probably have sh!t for brains.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Nerves, Inginuity, Intelligence, and lots more!
door-934-12154220 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A stunning sequel to Casino Royale from concept to action! This film takes you through a car chase ending in a great opening line, a foot chase ending in phenomenal focus on swinging ropes, a boat chase ending in a classic resurgence of bond musical strings, a plane chase with a death defying jump and chilling discovery absolutely critical to our political and environmental near future.

All this was done with no gadgets, hardly even a gun. One man, his wit, nerves, and bare hands - James Bond.

There were very subtle nuances between James and M that most people probably did not catch regarding loyalties. At one point, bond and M converse as if they are mad at each other and are actually telling each other information without the rest of the room noticing.

Yes, we missed humor for the most part and it was cold and driven - but I found Bond as passionate and warm in this movie as in any since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There was a constant bombardment on his character, but you could see from the action - he was not killing on purpose - it came from the job at hand. What a responsibility and what a dedication to truth and justice.

Good to see Mathis again, and loved the way it panned out with Leiter. Great bond girls. Fantastic all around! Great stunts and cinematography. Good sound, good mood - good snooping and back and forth with headquarters. Very well directed - congrats! All in all - a touch different, but a welcome addition to the bond series - one that will be watched again and again with great pleasure.
8/10
A fine entry in the new era of Bond...
earz8123 November 2008
I have read all the criticism of this movie. I have analyzed it and thought about it quite a bit. I have discussed this movie with others.

I've seen it twice. It was better the second time. I have to admit I went in to the first viewing not expecting much given the treatment by the critics.

All I can say is that the franchise is going in a new direction and thank God it is.

All you have to ask yourself if you sharply criticize this movie is, do you want to go back to the days of silly humor, Bond in a clown suit, swimming in a crocodile suit, invisible cars, villains controlling the sun with a Nintendo Power Glove, stupid plots, sky diving with the Union Jack, License to Kill, diamond-faced villains, face changing machines, joystick controlled cars, Lotus submarines, etc? Do you want stupid, campy, unrealistic movies, or the grown up franchise that started with Casino Royale and continues with Quantum? If you want the former then criticize away. If you want the latter, focus, get some intelligence and watch a good movie. The plot isn't that hard to follow.

Think and rejoice that the franchise is finally respectable again.
7/10
Just too much.
StephenRidley12 February 2012
Quantum of Solace is a good movie. I really do enjoy watching it, especially the first 15 minutes or so, but after that, it really just goes downhill.

I am a huge Bond fan, and I have to say I was pleased with the turn that Casino Royale took. I do hope to see more gadgets in the future movies, but the grit of Casino Royale was perfect. It was a great reboot. Although far from classic 007 films (no gadgets; few loose women, which is better in my opinion) we were starting over. We got to see how it all began, and changes were made. The last line of the movie was the famous, "The names Bond, James Bond." BOOM. We're back! We saw how Bond was born, and it was exciting! ...But wait...here we go again. Quantum of Solace moves even further from Bond, going backwards from where Casino Royale was heading. At times, I forgot I was watch James Bond. He became more of an assassin than a super spy. I guess they were trying to branch from the success of the Bourne movies.

As I said, I did enjoy it, but not necessarily as a 007 movie. Casino Royale was so successful that the filmmakers thought they had to go BIGGER, with more action! But that's not necessarily what we wanted. If we cared so much about action, we wouldn't have sat to watch 007 play cards for so long. They tried so hard to fit so much into this movie: a car chase, a foot chase, a boat chase, a plane chase...sounds good I guess. But fitting so much into one movie is difficult. Each action scene seemed to end almost immediately after it began. I like action sequences that last, but these had to be cut short to make room for the next action sequence. It just didn't flow very well.

I promise, I didn't hate this movie. The cinematography is beautiful, easily one of the best of the Bond films. ...Um...well I suppose that's my favorite part. But it certainly is watchable, and I think that if Casino Royale hadn't created so much hype, people would have enjoyed it more.

Overall, it's good. The villain isn't great, more like a little weasel than a real Bond bad guy. I loved the music in Casino Royale, but not so much in this one. It just felt weird. At times, scenes were a tad awkward. I've always thought Wright's portrayal of Felix was a bit annoying, even more so in this movie.

It's certainly not the best Bond movie, but not the worst either. Give it a try, if you haven't already.
6/10
Enjoyable to watch, There are some issues though.
lessenus29 November 2009
I prefer the serious character and personality of Bond played by Daniel Craig and his acting is great. I especially enjoyed the opera scene and all the action scenes as well. However, this movie has a few major issues for me. First of all, I really disliked the intro music. I thought that it's so distracting and degrading a nice visual effect of the intro. The intro music for Casino Royale was so much better than this one. Secondly, I didn't like the storyline which is a continuation of Casino Royale. I think it would've been better if the storyline was totally new. The villains in this movie have relatively weak characters compared to villains in Casino Royale. Villains in Bond movies need to have a somewhat theatrical quality.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace is a tale of sex,lies and deceit
latoya-jones315 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quantum of Solace

Quantum of Solace is a tale of sex ,lies,deceit and betrayal. Full of action from the beginning to the end James bond played by Daniel Craig amazes us with jaw dropping stunts as he travels all over the world trying to untangle this web of deceit.

During his journey he encounters a young beautiful lady by the name of Camille played by Olga Kurylenko. Camille leads bond to Dominic Green played by Mathieu Amalric who is head of Green Technology an evil organization. That threatens to take over one of earths most important natural resources. Some spoilers through out this review of an very good action film that brings me to mind of Mission Impossible that was equally action packed to me. The theme of this movie is another ruthless man going to far to be rich and rule the world.

James Bond and Camille both use Dominic Green to get to someone or something they want in this film. Camille takes a chance sleeping with this dangerous ruthless man in order to get to the general of Bolivia a dictator who was trying to control h is country. He had killed her family and burned her home and she swore revenge upon him.

James Bond tracks down Dominic Greens every move in the effort to spoil his plans. He calls on an old friend who us to be an agent and good friend. Dominic has his friend and an innocent woman who was a secretary sent to bring Bond home. Bond was faced with the difficult question of why everyone that gets close to him seems to die. The police framed Bond for the death of his friend and M played by Judi Dench is forced to have her agents bring him in. So she goes to see Bond for herself in hopes of getting understanding of his actions.

The motif of this film shows different agencies and groups like the CIA turning there heads and getting involved for the hope of being able to trade for oil an resource they thought Dominic was after . Through out the film even the agency bond work for was willing to turn there head for hopes of being able to get some oil. Bond discover that it wasn't oil that Dominic had. They used many different camera angles to show Bond running and everything around him blowing up and burning down. They used light from the sun on location, and the stars in the night as part of the back ground and scenery.

In the end Dominic Green was willing to go through anything to be rich and rule the world kill, lie, cheat, and betray the people who was doing business with him to get what he wants.
9/10
awesome
pryt868 May 2013
A great bond film. Its very different and not predictable like most action films and a lot of the bond films. It takes a different path and thats why i love this movie. It seems like there is too many movies that are the same and you can basically tell someone what happens before you even get to the end. This is just a great movie. And the fact that it is different and some parts you have to think about. Is the reason why most people didn't like it. Its sad cause this is really one of the best bond films. The fact there is this ghost group running, and doing things,and having people everywhere and no one knows who they are, is just plain awesome. And the fighting and action scenes are great. And its nice not to see james bond screw every girl he looks at. Its just sad it didn't get better reviews and people didn't understand it better. Because the next movie skyfall was good. But it went back to the been done before, predictable routine.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Give me a steady cam
andrewnat22 January 2022
A great story and all the elements we love in Bond but the direction is so frustrating. This suffers from too much camera movement. Mendes was able to bring a style to these films, but this was a little annoying and Marc Foster missed the mark.

Daniel Craig proved to be a wonderful James Bond. He shows the Bond grit but still a real vulnerability. It's a pity Foster couldn't match it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Review
gregy_m5 February 2016
In my opinion and going against the trend, this is Daniel Craig's best movie as Bond. He is comfortable in character, the film is not overly long (where the Sam Mendes films are overly drawn-out) it's a typical Bond plot, for which you can read; unimaginable in the real world but the story is woven intraditional Bond form. The locations are stunning and the supporting cast carry their characters with a fair degree of depth. The Opera scene stands out as a sharp and stunning piece of movie making, setting Q of S apart from the Mendes efforts. Unlike Skyfall and Spectre, Q of S contains relevant and snappy dialogue between the characters, mixed with excellent action scenes that every Bond audience expects.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as boring as I remember
underaglassmoon-6220418 January 2022
I have just rewatched Quantum of Solace for the first time since I was bored and disappointed by it in the cinema and I was pleasantly surprised. The story is more interesting than I remember. It does feel like less happens than in a typical Bond film although I very much appreciated the shorter running time compared to some of the other Daniel Craig installments.

Another viewing of Casino Royale would have helped me to understand what is going on in this movie as QoS follows on directly from it but a quick read of its plot on Wikipedia sufficed.

The cinematography of the action scenes is definitely the worst part of this film. There is so much shaky cam and many jump cuts, making the action hard to follow at times and unappealing to watch. Other than that, there are no stand-out negatives. The acting is fine and the dialogue is good, especially when compared to the most recent film in the series, No Time To Die.
7/10
Bond with the best!
vishald018 December 2008
I saw this movie only recently and I must say, it was a good sequel to Casino Royale, and a good addition to the latest Bond franchise. Although the movie looks a bit choppy with the direction, Marc Forster has brilliantly projected Bond's state of mind after losing Vesper and his search for the truth. Yes the punch lines were missing but I think they will start developing in his later movies. Daniel Craig has done a good job, considering the nature of the script and has been brilliantly backed up by Mathieu Amalric, Olga Kurylenko & Judi Dench. The film has its Bond moments with Ms Fields played equally well by Gemma Arterton. All in all, a good rendition of the new Bond with many more to come.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews